How do you indicate relationships in a short and easy to understand way?

[Stanwix England]

I'm currently getting back to writing up one side of my family history. It's been a few months since I started this project, so I've just gone back to read over it again after some time.

I've put a family tree at the start of the document.

Each relative has their own page or pages, where I explain things that were happening in their lives and what I've been able to find out about them.

The problem I have, is that unless you refer to the family tree at the start, it gets a bit confusing, particularly as there are reused names. Even I am confused about who is who, reading it back, and I wrote the flipping thing.

I am thinking about putting a modified version of the tree at the start of each person's page, but I don't want it to be too big, as I've formatted the pages in columns. A tree diagram doesn't really work there.

I was thinking about a list a bit like you get on some Ancestry trees, something like this.

Bob Smith, father of John Smith
John Smith, father of Mary Smith
Mary Smith, mother of Elizabeth Jones

Maybe if I added their b and d dates that would add some more context?

I'm just curious about how other people have tackled this issue, and if anybody has any suggestions.

[martin hooper]

I have a website where I narrate the stories of some of my ancestors. Like you I thought about how to put people in context, and indeed I got feedback that whilst the stories were interesting the reader didn't always know how we were related. I don't think there's any simple answer to it. My website has family trees at the top, just like you've done, and I often describe the relationship at the beginning of a narrative. Just do whatever seems to work.

Martin

https://www.hoopertapestry.com/home

[joger]

I'm currently getting back to writing up one side of my family history. It's been a few months since I started this project, so I've just gone back to read over it again after some time.

I've put a family tree at the start of the document.

Each relative has their own page or pages, where I explain things that were happening in their lives and what I've been able to find out about them.

The problem I have, is that unless you refer to the family tree at the start, it gets a bit confusing, particularly as there are reused names. Even I am confused about who is who, reading it back, and I wrote the flipping thing.

I am thinking about putting a modified version of the tree at the start of each person's page, but I don't want it to be too big, as I've formatted the pages in columns. A tree diagram doesn't really work there.

I was thinking about a list a bit like you get on some Ancestry trees, something like this.

Bob Smith, father of John Smith
John Smith, father of Mary Smith
Mary Smith, mother of Elizabeth Jones

Maybe if I added their b and d dates that would add some more context?

I'm just curious about how other people have tackled this issue, and if anybody has any suggestions.

Hello ,
I use the Sosa -Stradovitz system  ( also called Ahnentafel) but there are many more genealogical numbering systems.

[Stanwix England]

Thank you for the suggestions everyone, they are very much appreciated.

[Rosinish]

I did a family tree many yrs ago on excel & colour coded each line (prior to purchasing FTM 2006) which in turn helped the recipients to follow/understand each generation.

Would colour coding help?

Annie

[oldfashionedgirl]

When I started years ago it was all on paper.
I had been  given a fan shaped pedigree chart and started filling it in but as you many names repeated so I numbered each entry.

I wanted to do my husbands family too so I started it from my son.
He was No. 1, husband 2, me 3, husbands father 4, etc.
Each person has a page in a lever arch file where details were written.

I am now slowly transferring it to digital and checking and finding errors along the way.

It was pretty basic but even now I often refer back to that chart to see exactly where a person fits in. It must be the way my brain is wired but I find it easier to look at this large sheet of paper than a screen, I can understand it at a glance.

Hence my avatar ‘old fashioned girl’ 😁😀🤣

[Ruskie]

Before you mentioned this near the end of your post Stanwix, my first thought was to give the person’s birth date in the narrative, eg John Smith b 1860 …. Who could be father of John Smith b1882 for example. You could simply call them John Smith 1860 / John Smith 1882.

The relationships can be very confusing.

This next example happens quite a lot on posts on rootschat, and I usually have to reread numerous times, or pencil out a tree to get my head around it, or ask a dozen questions to clarify, or perhaps just give up …. and that is something along the lines of:
“my great grandfather’s uncle married his second cousin, and then he married her sister and they lived in St Pancras with her mother ….”  . If I were you I would avoid this way of writing which I think makes often confusing relationships, even harder to follow.

Another thing that always makes me double check is when people write the woman’s married name and then write her maiden name as an afterthought or omit it entirely - along the lines of : “John Smith and his wife Ann Smith (previously Jones).” I like “John Smith and his wife Ann Jones”.

Just a personal gripe with that one. 

[joger]

When I started years ago it was all on paper.
I had been  given a fan shaped pedigree chart and started filling it in but as you many names repeated so I numbered each entry.

I wanted to do my husbands family too so I started it from my son.
He was No. 1, husband 2, me 3, husbands father 4, etc.
Each person has a page in a lever arch file where details were written.

I am now slowly transferring it to digital and checking and finding errors along the way.

It was pretty basic but even now I often refer back to that chart to see exactly where a person fits in. It must be the way my brain is wired but I find it easier to look at this large sheet of paper than a screen, I can understand it at a glance.

Hence my avatar ‘old fashioned girl’ 😁😀🤣

So you use the Sosa numbering

[bluesofa]

When writing up my findings I have tried to make clear at the start of each Section which part of the family are going to be discussed.  That may mean a sub-tree, and/or where I'm discussing a family, I put a a brief line at the top listing grandparents and children with birth dates. Where there are common names, I then add the birth date in the text to distinguish.

On refreshing my knowledge of Ahnentafel on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_numbering_systems) I came across Binary Ahnentafel, which appears easier to interpret (to me) than Ahnentafel numbers, if not as compact. Under Binary Ahnentafel ancestors are simply listed as male of female, so XMFF would be X's father's mother's mother (perhaps XFMM for X's Father's Mother's Mother would be even more intuitive  ). I think only direct ancestors are categorised though, and I guess most people would like to have X as themselves!

So I agree with Martin, I don't think there's any simple answer to it.