I am probably over-thinking this, but hear me out:
I have a lady who gave birth, out of wedlock, to twins A (boy) and B (girl). shortly after, she married and the husband, C, acknowledged A to be his son. B, however, died before the wedding, so she was never acknowledged to be C's daughter.
I record children who are born before a couple have wed to be their regular children (Child Status: Legitimised, if that did indeed occur) and yes Reunion does complain that they were born before the Marriage occurred but we can ignore that. Children not acknowledged by a father I keep attached as a child of only the mother (with no partner), even if the child was never legally acknowledged by the mother.
This is a split case, though, and although I can record B as being merely the child of the mother, and B the eventual child of the mother of of C, it would not be readily visible that A and B were twins.
As I say, am I overthinking this?
I have a lady who gave birth, out of wedlock, to twins A (boy) and B (girl). shortly after, she married and the husband, C, acknowledged A to be his son. B, however, died before the wedding, so she was never acknowledged to be C's daughter.
I record children who are born before a couple have wed to be their regular children (Child Status: Legitimised, if that did indeed occur) and yes Reunion does complain that they were born before the Marriage occurred but we can ignore that. Children not acknowledged by a father I keep attached as a child of only the mother (with no partner), even if the child was never legally acknowledged by the mother.
This is a split case, though, and although I can record B as being merely the child of the mother, and B the eventual child of the mother of of C, it would not be readily visible that A and B were twins.
As I say, am I overthinking this?
Comment