Genealogy Chat

Thanks OC That seems like a good idea - I was hoping for someone with experience to give me a lead. I have a widow, a wife (no, not the wife of a transport) described as daughter and a granddaughter all with different names and no man anywhere around all at the same address. It was at that point it dawned just how big a problem I had. It seems to me to be sensible to put what you know as soon as you know on the tree. Clive

I put Mary, Mrs James Smith, or Mary, Mrs Smith. Reminds ME that she is a married woman and stops me looking fruitlessly for her baptism as a Smith, which I have done on more than one occasion. OC

I see your problem; on an ordinary tree 'Unknown' is fine because the tree then links them to their husband which you can't do from the info on just this census. How about 'Mary wife/widow of unknown Smith'

In the final analysis......it's your site; you must do what you feel happy with. Reg

A brainwave ? Mary Smith-Unknown abt 1806 Sweffling, Suffolk (where Smith is name from census) There are huge numbers of Mary Unknowns already where the husband is known. Clive

Only if you add a note to the effect that it is not actually the woman's maiden name..........otherwise, you will lose track of which names are 'real', and which are 'fabricated'. Personally, I would stick with 'unknown' until such time as the correct name can be determined.......less likely to confuse........... Reg

If you look at the spreadsheet of names on the www.sweffling.org.uk site you will see there are a lot of either widows or men without husbands present. To put them into a tree I am entering Mary A Smith rather than Mary A Unknown which is what I would do if husband was around Is this a sensible approach? Clive

unexpected problem