I have an interesting situation. In the late 1700s, my GGG grandmother was married and pregnant. While still pregnant, her husband was killed in an logging accident. I have just discovered that the man who caused the accident then married my GGG grandmother, as was the custom to "take care of the family". My GG grandmother was then born with the surname of the new non-bio father, not the surname of her biological dad. I know the name and particulars of the bio dad.
My question is, how should I best record this? Biological vs non-biological
Do I record my GG grandmother's birth as it is recorded in the documents under her registered birth name, then add alias surname, and enter details in Notes?
In that case, do I keep the ancestral information linked for the non-bio dad's ancestors?
Or, I could link her with her documented birth surname to her bio father and enter details in Notes.
If I did that, then my GG grandmother's link with her siblings would not show up in the family tree as the whole family, but would show up as solely the daughter of her mother, so a half-sibling (which she technically is).
I already have lots of ancestral information for the non-bio dad, some of which also links to other family links of mine.
I would still like to somehow retain info for both the bio and non-bio fathers, but I think that would get really confusing, so I guess any ancestors linked to the non-bio dad should be removed?
Which is more important? Is bio information more important than paper trail for the non-bio in a family tree? Or vice versa?
Hope this makes sense. Just wondering what others would do.
Thanks!
Karen
Victoria, BC Canada
My question is, how should I best record this? Biological vs non-biological
Do I record my GG grandmother's birth as it is recorded in the documents under her registered birth name, then add alias surname, and enter details in Notes?
In that case, do I keep the ancestral information linked for the non-bio dad's ancestors?
Or, I could link her with her documented birth surname to her bio father and enter details in Notes.
If I did that, then my GG grandmother's link with her siblings would not show up in the family tree as the whole family, but would show up as solely the daughter of her mother, so a half-sibling (which she technically is).
I already have lots of ancestral information for the non-bio dad, some of which also links to other family links of mine.
I would still like to somehow retain info for both the bio and non-bio fathers, but I think that would get really confusing, so I guess any ancestors linked to the non-bio dad should be removed?
Which is more important? Is bio information more important than paper trail for the non-bio in a family tree? Or vice versa?
Hope this makes sense. Just wondering what others would do.
Thanks!
Karen
Victoria, BC Canada
Comment