NO MARR

[mariannevanharten]

In the documentation about Gedcom 7.0.18 I read:

1 NO MARR
2 DATE TO 24 MAR 1880
means “no marriage had occurred as of March 24th, 1880”

In my tree I have a couple who intended to marry on (for example) 24 March 1880, so I tried to write:

1 NO MARR
2 DATE 24 MAR 1880

The Chronoplex Gedcom Validator tells me this is wrong.
What do I have to do if I know the exact day of the intended marriage?

Best regards,
Marianne

[tychonievich]

You can say

1 NO MARR
2 DATE FROM 24 MAR 1880 TO 24 MAR 1880

I generally expand the date period to be as long as I'm aware of (for example, if they also didn't marry before then I'd just say TO 24 MAR; if they were still unmarried at the time of their deaths I'd omit the DATE altogether to say it never happened), but a date period can include just a single day if the FROM/TO dates are the same.

[Norwegian-Sardines]

A real problem with using the NO MARR and a FROM/TO is that you can’t really prove that date range. A MARR tag is an event tag, with a verified source you can (kind of) prove a specific date, “they were married on a day”, and we can assume they continued to be married going forward until they were not. But we can’t say for sure there was a range. That is doubly true about a negative “not married”! We can say “they were not married on” but can we say “they were not married from one date to another”! I take a NO MARR to mean you have proof they were not married on a date, but not that they had intended to marry but backed out on that date!

Personally, I would not use any form of a date range with NO MARR, and a very limited use with a MARR.

So the question is, did they announce they were to be married (a MARB “bann”, are they always formal?) and not go through with it? What level of proof do you have? Are we talking about using more NOTE and less date specifics?

[Norwegian-Sardines]

Alternatively I use for a letter or interview:

1 MARR
2 TYPE never

And if the dated letter says “they/we never married” the date of the letter or interview is part of the citation rather than the date of the event!

Where as, if the date of the event (for example a birth) states the child was illegitimate, in the past I would not use a MARR tag at all, thus no conversion to 7.0 NO MARR. However, it would be appropriate with only the date of the birth event (not a FROM/TO) if enter directly into v7.0 of GEDCOM.

I believe that a FROM/TO or even a TO date can’t be assumed because a birth certificate could say illegitimate but they could have been married in the past just not at the time of the birth! All we really know is that the mother was not married at the time of the birth event! And without a birth certificate, but based on family lore a NO MARR is even less likely to be useful! I have a specific example of this in a family where “grandma” went to her grave stating a new born child 10 months after the death of her husband was still her husband’s child! So it was never illegitimate in the eyes of her family and being a farm family no official state record was made at the time.

[tychonievich]

I don't think TYPE never works. The definition of the g7:TYPE structure includes the description

Using the subordinate TYPE classification method provides a further classification of the superstructure but does not change its basic meaning.

I think TYPE never does change its basic meaning: the basic meaning is that a marriage did occur, and TYPE never implies it did not happen.

[Norwegian-Sardines]

So what is the difference between:

1. NO MARR with a date that says, "I found no marriage sources up to this date or for this period",
2. NO MARR with a date that says, "They intended to marry but did not",
3. NO MARR with a date that says "I found direct evidence they were never married"?

I would rather see:

• A marriage
  1 MARR
  2 DATE 1/1/2025

-An intended marriage
1 NO MARR
2 TYPE Intended
2 DATE 1/1/2025

-Never Married
1 NO MARR
2 TYPE Never

How does

1 NO MARR
2 DATE 2 DATE TO 23 MAR 1880

tell us they could have married on 24 MAR 1880? When the same thing could tell us that we did not find any reference to a marriage before 24 MAR 1880! I'm assuming here that you found a reference to a marriage that could have been on 24 MAR 1880 but you are not sure it is them!

I think you answers are all very ambiguous!!

[dthaler]

So what is the difference between:

1. NO MARR with a date that says, "I found no marriage sources up to this date or for this period",

I think that would have no 2 SOUR ... under the 1 NO MARR, since you have no sources.

2. NO MARR with a date that says, "They intended to marry but did not",

That would presumably have a 2 SOUR ..., since you somehow know they did not.

3. NO MARR with a date that says "I found direct evidence they were never married"?

That would presumably have a 2 SOUR ... with a 3 QUAY 3 because the source is direct evidence.

[Norwegian-Sardines]

Yes, sources say a lot.... however, when you are trying to run a report that asks, "tell me everyone that intended to marry but did not" or "list all couples that never married" you can't because there is no switch to indicate that. This would be wrong from a programming standpoint. And you can't trust the presence or lack of a source to determine a specific state because not everyone adds sources! It is far better to state: "They never married" in a standard, defined and repeatable way. This is why I believe that a TYPE of "never" is valuable and valid! For a engagement that never became a marriage don't use NO MARR but use:

1 ENGA
2 TYPE Broken

And record the proposed wedding date as a NOTE. The value of the date is minor, the value of the Engagement being broken is paramount!

[dthaler]

Discussion during GEDCOM Steering Committee meeting:

• If the couple intended to marry but then did not marry after all, then a NO MARR period can contain the originally intended date. 2 DATE FROM 24 MAR 1880 TO 24 MAR 1880 does this.
• If the couple might have married on a date, but not before, then a NO MARR period not including that date would be used, such as 2 DATE TO 23 MAR 1880 (note the 23 not 24).
• If the source of the information is a published intent to marry, the MARB (if some "official" announcement) or ENGA (if unofficial) event may be used but the DATE associated would be the date of the announcement, not the date of the proposed marriage.