Recording illegitimate child when father is not known

[marki573]

I recently had a person born illegitimately where the father was not stated, and where the mother later remarried and had other children who were legitimate from a different father.
I solved it by:
Add 'Unknown' as Spouse
Add Child to the children area of the family view - from clipboard
Delete 'Unknown' person.

Is there a better way of doing this?

[Dennis J. Cunniff]

Well, I'm not sure of the benefit of deleting the unknown father, but other than that, that's the usual way. Just mark the connection between parents as "unmarried".

[John Hill]

Well, I'm not sure of the benefit of deleting the unknown father, but other than that, that's the usual way. Just mark the connection between parents as "unmarried".

To me, the main benefit of deleting the unknown father is that my family file is not cluttered up with a lot of indistinguishable "Unknown"s of no interest. So I have always deleted them.
I do seem to have quite a few illegitimates, perhaps it's just my family… For example, I have one lady who had nine children between 1853 and 1872, with never a father between them. An extreme case, perhaps, but there you go.

[Bob White]

To me, the main benefit of deleting the unknown father is that my family file is not cluttered up with a lot of indistinguishable "Unknown"s of no interest. So I have always deleted them..........

And for me, it's just the opposite. It's a blank that I want to fill in at a future date because I can't right now. Also, not all such blanks in my tree are "Unknown." Sometimes, they are a first name or a last name..... but they all are blanks to fill in. Challenges to overcome!

[eric.vanbeest]

I have about 800 people in my Family File with a known mother but an unknown father. When adding such a Person to a mother who has an existing relationship of which the child is not a part, I add an "n.n." Person as a to the mother, add the child, and delete the "n.n." Person. I do make sure the order of the relationships is right (I appear to have no children of a married mother but not of that husband).

I do so because I don't need 800 unknown people cluttering up my Family File, particularly because there is no futher information available. Yes, maybe in the future if by dint of genetics we uncover a hitherto unknown relationship. But with each generation that becomes slimmer and slimmer.

There is but 1 exception in my Family File. This was for a child born with an "unknown" father but who was identified as X years old and "labourer" as occupation. The uncle of the lady in question fits the description. I've kept the "unknown" father but with a Note (to myself) explaining why this is.

[marki573]

Thanks for the discussion guys, there are times when its useful to leave an 'unknown' on the family tree, although I prefer to enter a new person and link - otherwise I may risk having lots of unknowns left around.

I really wanted to discover if, in the case that I stated, there was a better way of adding a child born illegitimately where the father was not known, where there were other children born of the same mother but different (known) father. Reunion's way of accomplishing this just seems cumbersome.

[Warwick Dilley]

I'm with Bob White. The 'family tree' is just the 'organisation chart' or chart of accounts. The real story (or history) is in the interpretation, the answers to the 'why' questions.

[Herb]

I know that we’re talking semantics here, but a child is never “illegitimate”. What a horrible word. The child had a mother and a father who may or may not have been married (so what) or where one or the other may or may not be known. There has to be better descriptive word

[Michael Talibard]

Perhaps the phrase you're looking for is 'natural child.'

[Bob White]

Michael. All babies are natural. Anyway, I have never been one to use any of those labels (or others such as born out of wedlock). I simply label the pairing of mother and father as Not Married. Any further information regarding that issue goes in my Notes.

[Michael Talibard]

All babies are natural… I have never been one to use any of those labels… goes in my Notes.

Oh I do agree, Bob. It was just that Herb wanted (maybe for his Notes?) a less horrible descriptive word than 'illegitimate.'

[Herb]

Michael - No, I was just making a comment to the title of this message string and objecting to the use of the word "illegitimate". Purely an emotional comment and probably didn't have any place in this message string.

[Patrick Fail]

Interesting thread. I have an unknown father as a person in my tree, who DNA matching has subsequently shown to be one of 8 brothers - none of whom was known to his children or other family members. I originally gave him a surname and an "unknown" first name , but because I am close to an answer, I changed it to Brother???. That way he and his forebears show up in family trees.