Can we do something for spouses who were never validly married?

Question

Increasingly I have people who were never validly married or who were in a de facto relationship where they are in the tree as the parent of a child.  I often want to insert them in between other spouses and add the date of the known relationship so they appear in order.

I'd like it to show on the profile page as having a date, then 'never validly married'.  The only way I can see to do that is to use the location field, but that creates an error.  Would it be possible to have a notes field in the marriage details so we could add something like that?

Alternatively - when we add the spouse would a better idea be to have radio buttons like on the parent/child?  Married/Defacto/Relationship unknown?  or something like that..

Comments

I'm so glad you asked this question!  I have run into these relationships on my tree and have struggled with how to record their relationships.

---

Appears I've hit a bit of a nerve which I didn't intend.  Perhaps a comment box might be the better solution.

---

I think the reason some people responded the way they did is the use of the word "validly". Perhaps "legally" might have been a better choice. 

A legal marriage is one that is honored or recognized by the state or the government. This can include common-law marriages in some US states and in many other countries (i.e., where the couple lives together for enough years to be considered "married" even if they never had a ceremony). A legal marriage has implications for things like inheritance, insurance coverage, and the "legitimacy" of children (which is a loaded term in its own right and illegal today in some places...but I'm trying to address many sides to this issue over time).

The word "valid" is subjective. What do you think is a valid marriage? What does your aunt think is a valid marriage? What does the state consider a valid marriage? When is a marriage invalid? What determines the validity of a marriage? Can a marriage be invalidated? This is all too fuzzy and confusing for our purposes here.

Personally, I think there should be a way to indicate a common-law marriage on WikiTree, because that is a legal form of marriage in many places. But it is not the only type of relationship that is "honored by the state" or is otherwise given legal protections under the law.

I think there could be something as simple as a dropdown option to describe the relationship:

• marriage
• civil union
• common-law marriage
• cohabitation

Of course, the exact wording would be determined by the context in which the label would ultimately be used. 

I don't think that it matters what sexes the individuals are, nor does it matter their gender identity. There are a few types of "couple" relationships and I think we could find some simple, factual labels that apply across a broad spectrum of countries and cultures over time.

Answer 1

Do you want to Judge who is validly married?

Is Marriage of Non-Baptized Persons Valid?
https://www.catholic.com/qa/is-marriage-of-non-baptized-persons-valid

WikiTree is world wide so is going to rule over what people do?

Comments

No judgement - just want to be able to have the wording on the profile say something more accurate.  At the moment it says married when we know they weren't.

---

If they considered themselves married, WikiTree allows them to be recorded as married (see my earlier comment). I agree with Doug that we shouldn't be judging what is "valid". It's how they saw the situation that's important, not how we or the state might or might not see it. This is particularly true in the case of same-sex or inter-racial partnerships which cruelly were illegal at some places and times in history.

Answer 2

I hate to sound old fashioned about this however, If marriage includes "defacto","common law" etc. where does it end. Paramour relationships included? Do these alternative marriage status extend to same sex relationships that produce children? If so, why? If not, why not? If a person is in multiple relationships, producing multiple offspring, this will lead to conflating files and conflicting un-sourced information. If each person is represented by individual profiles, details of the relationship can be explained in the bio or notes.

Comments

Common Law Marriage was marriage.

---

Is it still considered/recognized as marriage? Laws changes from time-to-time and place to place. Genealogist have used "Marriage" as proof of fatherhood forever, unless proven otherwise. Given the current environment, w/o DNA it will soon be "uncertain".

---

Even if people never formally married, they can be recorded as spouses on WikiTree. For the marriage date, a known or estimated date for the start of the relationship can be used if available, or an explanation can be given in the biography. See this authoritative answer from Jamie Nelson on 9 December 2021:

If the people considered themselves married, then they can be attached as spouses in WikiTree even if they weren't officially married. Just explain the lack of a date in the biography.

Similarly Jamie wrote on 24 September 2022:

If they considered themselves as spouses, you can still add them as married even if there wasn't a formal ceremony. Just make sure to explain things in the biography. 

---

Thats why I think a comment box would be useful and it could be filled in when known.  It's more easily seen at the top of the bio, rather than in the bio, when you are researching.

---

Perhaps you mean a Research Note Box. Sorry but in my view that would be unnecessary clutter in cases when the partnership is already visible among the data fields because a marriage record has been added, and it has also been explained somewhere in the biography text as Jamie recommends.

---

I live for the day when the native interface no longer says "husband of" or "wife of" (or, my giddy aunt forbid, "spouse of"), but just says "married" with a date. 
Heck, I'd even be happy if all it said was a date, no "married" or "husband/wife of".
A start date (even approximated), and an end date when known.
Ahh, dreams.  

Answer 3

I don't think there is a set way to handle it, but I might offer this information. The link is for adding a spouse, which can be significant other in a marriage, civil union, common-law marriage or non-marital partner.

If the partners are indeed married, you can fill in the marriage place, dates, etc. So in the case of a significant other, I would just add them and leave the marriage place and dates blank. You could also further explain this in the biography.

Comments

Thanks Jimmy, well said. I agree location of marriage cannot be given in the absence of a formal ceremony, but it's reasonable to insert the approximate start date of the long-term relationship if that is known. The biography can give more details.

---

Yes that is the alternative but I want be be able to see the timeline - where there are multiple relationships.  So i need the date.

---

Veronica, part of my point is that inserting the approximate start date of the long-term relationship into the date field on the marriage does contribute to a timeline when there are multiple ones.

Answer 4

I'd say that biologically, the only relationships that matter are parents and children. Things that don't matter are:

* Relationships between people that don't produce children.

* Recognition of relationships by governments, religions, etc.

Answer 5

In New Zealand there is no single legal definition of marriage, as far back as the 1970's one statutory definition of marriage was defined as a "marriage in whatever form", currently the law recognises 2 marriages at the same time, or multi party marriages, but bigamy (two registered marriages at the same time) is a crime, two unregistered marriages aren't a crime.

 So for us a valid or legally recognised marriage doesn't have to be registered with the Government, it's a recognition of real life, it doesn't even require residing in the same house.

 To me this question is without merit, as others have pointed out it ignores the wide variation of marriage practices and laws internationally and over time.

 Maybe the word marriage should be replaced with relationship?

Comments

Alternatively, as has been proposed countless times here over many years, there would be options for unions other than marriage-- whether these unions resulted in offspring or not.

Answer 6

This seems to be a touchy topic, I agree.  But, it does need to be resolved on our Tree, some how.  In my own tree, which I still need to add several relationships, there are MANY families that had children/parents that never married.  We are in a state that does NOT allow for Common-Law Marriage of any sort, regardless.  And yet, most of the time the women would take the surname of the male and even until her death.  Any children also had his name.

The bottom line, how do we proceed on our tree?

Comments

Tammie, it is resolved. If two people considered themselves as married (as demonstrated for example by a woman changing her surname), they can be marked as spouses on WikiTree. See my comment at this link quoting Jamie Nelson.

---

Jim,

What about in places where Common Law is not "allowed" or recognized?

---

It does not matter if "Common Law" marriages were regognised where they lived.  If the couple lived together as a married couple, and thought of themselves as a married couple, then WT allows for them to be shown as spouses.

---

Thanks Melanie! Repressive laws past or present do not bar recognition on WikiTree.

---

Maybe I should have reworded my question.  How is it shown on our tree?  There would not be a DOM.  Do we just simply show that they are each a parent of said child(ren)?

---

If they considered themselves married (which given the name change you mentioned it seems they did), link them together as spouses by creating a WikiTree marriage record. If the approximate date of the start of the partnership is known, insert that in the date field, marked with status "about"; otherwise leave the field blank. Explain in the biography text as appropriate.

---

What if they did not consider themselves married?

I have a cousin. He and his brother's mother lived down the street from the man who was their biological father. The mother had a relationship with the birth father over time that resulted in these two sons.

Prior to my own marriage, I lived seven years with someone; our union did not result in children, but we were partners for that time-- we did not consider ourselves married; however, my "tree" does not include this relationship because Wikitree has no way to display this outside of a text description in the narrative.