descendants of non-biological ancestors

[gilbertdh]

The fathers of several grandchildren (two boys and two girls) of my most distant ancestor, John Smith, are not known. They live among the other ancestors as Smiths, but so far there is no evidence as to how they are related to John. (John has documented children who have grandchildren who appear in the census and in family genealogies.)

DNA has shown that the two boys are brothers, but they are not biologically Smiths, they are Jones. They were both born around 1800. I think I may be able someday to identify their father as there is a large Jones family right there in the same county.

Rather than make them and their hundreds of Smith/Jones descendants an island, I’d like to keep them in the main tree under John Smith, but also show that they are biologically Jones.

I have some ideas, but wondered if there is a way to handle this in a family tree.

Thanks
David

[mjashby]

Re: descendants of non-biological ancestors

One way of managing a link to the 'grandparent' would be to great a 'ghost', i.e. unknown, parent for the children (unknown gender as the parent could presumably be either male or female) and link that individual as a child of John Smith. That way, you can rename the 'ghost' if and when when you find the evidence or merge it with one of the known children of John Smith, if appropriate, or move the children individually to the correct parent(s) if/when you establish the evidence you need.

The existence of a 'ghost parent' will provide a constant visual reminder of that there is unknown information and research to be done, plus a single repository for noting the information you do have about the linkage between grandparent(s) and grandchild(ren).

Mervyn

[AE Palmer]

Re: descendants of non-biological ancestors

The fathers of several grandchildren (two boys and two girls) of my most distant ancestor, John Smith, are not known. They live among the other ancestors as Smiths, but so far there is no evidence as to how they are related to John. (John has documented children who have grandchildren who appear in the census and in family genealogies.)

DNA has shown that the two boys are brothers, but they are not biologically Smiths, they are Jones. They were both born around 1800. I think I may be able someday to identify their father as there is a large Jones family right there in the same county.

Rather than make them and their hundreds of Smith/Jones descendants an island, I’d like to keep them in the main tree under John Smith, but also show that they are biologically Jones.

I have some ideas, but wondered if there is a way to handle this in a family tree.

Thanks
David

How about creating a custom Child Status for them. Example: "<<< Biographically Jones >>>" and make it red so that it stands out.

Alternatively, you can change the surnames from Smith to Jones. (There is no "law" that says the surname of progeny must have the same surname of the father.) Reunion leaves that decision entirely up to you.

Or... do both!