TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2004-03 > 1078197100


From: "Dennis Norton" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Divorce still shows as spouse
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 22:11:40 -0500
References: <005501c3ffa3$48c380b0$173e2844@DennisDell340> <6.0.0.22.2.20040301104606.046ee098@pop3.norton.antivirus>


Yes, it does help at least in my thinking about it. People with these
"issues" like divorce want their history to be artificially "cleaned" up,
and I have tried to accommodate them and in earlier programs I used before
TMG, I could do this. However, I understand why TMG doesn't want to let me
"clean" them up. I'm just trying to find a way to make living relatives
happy about the genealogy of the family. Guess I shouldn't worry so much
about that. I might try a couple of suggestions made by you and Peter
Thompson just to make this relative happier, but your answers are well taken
and I'm at least glad I did not have a misunderstanding about how TMG works
in regard to divorce.

As always, thanks for your help.

Dennis


----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Hoffman" <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 11:19 AM
Subject: Re: [TMG] Divorce still shows as spouse


> Dennis Norton wrote:
> >I have a person who was divorced long ago and never re-married. However,
> >on the Sibling display and in many print-outs, it still shows the former
> >husband of this person as "spouse". On the Person view for that lady, it
> >properly shows a marriage tag and then a divorce tag. When she saw some
> >print outs including an Hourglass Report, she objected to the listing of
> >her ex husband as "spouse". On the Hourglass report it doesn't
> >specifically say spouse, but the box for the ex-spouse does not in any
way
> >mention a divorce. For people who did not know, it would appear that
they
> >were still married. I've noticed this in other areas where there are
> >multiple marriages. The hourglass report simply shows each husband
> >without an explanation of what happened to the first husband (died or
> >divorced). I have one person who had four husbands, all divorced. Since
> >none of the husbands have died, the Hourglass report simply shows four
> >husbands without any explanation or without any identi!
> >fication of whether or not she is still married or which one she would
> >still be married to.
> >
> >Did I miss something I needed to do to show that she is no longer married
> >on some of these reports and in the sibling view when looking at the
> >person view of her brother?
>
> No, you didn't miss anything unless there is some way to go back in time
> and prevent to original marriage. I assume that the couple in question
did
> not have children. The only way to prevent the spouse showing on reports
> is to remove those Tags that show that -- e.g., the Marriage and Divorce
> Tags. Depending on the report, you could simply mark the Tag Sentences
for
> those Tags as Excluded. But for other reports, the fact of the Tag will
> still cause some standard phrasings that would be unsatisfactory. Another
> option might be the removal of the Primary indicator for those Tags. But
> removing the Tags is about the only satisfactory solution.
>
> It has always been dumb-founding to me to have situations like this where
> people are offended if some (self-perceived) error on their part is
> publicized -- with whatever fanfare (usually little or none). But all I
do
> is make some notes that are Excluded and after the person(s) involved are
> dead (which may be after I'm gone) then I (or someone) will have the
> information) and can add the appropriate Tags like "should" have been done
> (if people weren't so thin-skinned) earlier/originally.
>
> Hope this helps (and pardon the soap-box <g>) -
>
> Lee Hoffman/KY
> TMG Tips: <http://www.tmgtips.com>;
> My website: <http://www.tmgtips.com/lhoffman>;
> A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)
>
>
> ==== TMG Mailing List ====
> To un-subscribe from TMG-L (in MAIL mode), send a message to
<> [to <> in Digest
mode] with just the word "unsubscribe" (no quotes)in the text and turn off
your signature.
>
>
>



This thread: