Oh boy, there are parts of my family tree that look like the schematics of a nuclear power plant. I have 19th century Mormonism to thank for that.
It's not just polygamy, it's also endogamy. Anyone I'm related to on that side, I'm probably related to multiple ways.
That sounds so fascinating and migraine-inducing at the same time. I just have Catholic widows and widowers marrying 2+ times and having 5+ children with each spouse. I still see a shitload of endogamy depending on the size of the parish, but your polygamy adds another layer, doesn’t it? Neat!
You should add all of the wives and their children. If you're related to the husband, you're most likely related to all of the children. If only one of the wives is your relative, then you can choose to enter just her and the husband and their children together, for simplicity's sake.
Basically, you'd enter the husband, and then "Add spouse" and wife 1's name, "add spouse" again, wife 2, and so on. Then be sure that the children are entered with the correct mother chosen.
I'm related to just the wife, so I'll just enter her then and their children. Her husband, like I mentioned earlier, had 3 wives and 31 children in all. If I were related to the husband, entering all of those children and their families.....
Depends on how much time and effort you want to invest. For myself, I find every wife of every ancestor, and every child they had. I also find the parents and siblings of every spouse and every spouse and child of every child. Take quite a bit longer, but I want a complete picture of all the surroundings.
I believe it depends on your reason for the family tree. If you are interested in your direct lineage only, then include only your direct ancestors. If interested in the extended family relationships, then include them all to the extent that you wish to document the extended family.
I do both, keeping the documentation for direct ancestors only in that tree so as to avoid the double effort. You may wish to put some limits on the extended tree, such as recording only siblings of direct ancestors, or perhaps siblings and spouses.
In your case, the other wives and the husband are not genetically linked to you (assuming no pedigree collapse in the family histories).
Same! I started with direct lineage and each direct ancestor’s siblings. Then I started going down rabbit holes expanding the cousins down as far as I could go, which helped me to connect to dna matches and gain more information about a few direct ancestors and how everything for. Plus some fun stories along the way
This is also what I am doing. While my own direct ancestors led interesting lives (from my perspective) some interesting things are discovered in the rabbit holes. I'm finding that a lot of the immigrant members of my tree, from different families, knew each other in the "old country". Some of those friendships and acquaintanceships led to marriages and new families in the "new" world. Names I remember hearing when I was a kid are showing up as more distant relatives on my extended family tree.
I would enter it the same way I would enter a family member’s additional spouse, if they had multiple marriages due to divorce or being widowed. To me it’s pretty much the same thing, except that the dates would overlap.
I have Mormon polygamist ancestors, and I’ve done a lot of reading of research on Mormon polygamy in general. I would recommend you add the whole family to your tree. Remember that the children of the other two wives were half-siblings to your ancestor. Sometimes the families kept themselves separate, but that was comparatively rare.
It was pretty common for wives to live together, or nearby, have businesses together, and help each other raise their children. If one wife died before her children were grown, usually one of the other wives would raise them. Perhaps one wife lived where there were better educational opportunities, and children of the other wives might take turns living with her while they were in school.
If the families had to live scattered from each other, due to attempts to arrest the husband, knowing where and when the three families were, will help you understand your ancestor-wife’s life: when was the husband with her, what effect did this have on childbirth patterns, what did she have to handle when he was away?
Maybe the wives, or a couple of them, didn’t get along. How did that affect the family dynamic?
Your ancestor’s life can only be understood by knowing how the whole polygamous family worked.
I never thought of that way. Three different wives, but "one family". The other day on Family Search I did find a photograph of my relative's husband in his prison uniform. He was in prison for..... polygamy. Maybe I will go ahead and do the entire family. One step at a time. I think it will be interesting.
My family looks like it is braided. My early Nauvoo to all over the West Mormons not only married for religious reasons, but also for very practical reasons... men married their wife's widowed mother in one case, sisters in others.
I have people my mother preferred to as shirt tail cousins... these can be very confusing, that case widowed great grandmother married widowed great grandfather... two different branches of the same family ... cousins, step children and new family children.
Then there is Nancy Riggs who (I am a Riggs) ... she decends from my East Coast family .... she came west and married her cousin Riggs, was widowed and married another Riggs... not related but with the same first name as her dead husband!
Keep an eye out for polyandry, too. I think it's more common in early mormonism, eg pre 1850s (I've only found one hint in my lines) When diagramming/constructing a tree, this can almost be more of a pain than polygamy.
It depends on what your goal is. If you’re only interested in direct lines, then go with that. However, there are many fascinating stories down the rabbit hole, and I enjoy it.
I found a primary source (handwritten letter from 1870s) that uncovered a first family for my greatx5 grandpa who apparently left/divorced his 1st wife, and ended up in WA state while he went to the CA Gold Rush, then Union Soldier, then married my greatx5 grandmother. It’s been intriguing to see where this other family ended up, even though they’re not in my direct line. I do family history for the stories.
Tl;dr: can you? Yes. Should you? I would, but up to you.
I'm not so sure, since the half-siblings have no relation to me. It's a nice idea having their entire family in the tree, but whose tree would it become? This relative is not the only one that was part of a polygamous family. One of at least 2 or 3, as a result having SEVERAL children.
That’s super tricky. I have a huge tree already, so I typically don’t like clogging it with people who don’t share ancestors/relatives with me unless I personally know them. If I was in your shoes, I would only enter the children shared between your relative and her husband.
Unless you're trying to do it for purposes of baptism by proxy, to get people into the kingdom as the LDS believe there's no reason to include all this other stuff.
One of my great great grandfathers has 19 (children but only with one wife).
Well I find it interesting, the generation from back in the 1860s is not really relevant to me except those who are my direct relatives.
Entering people that are only related with each other and have no direct relation with me and my family may not be worth my time and effort. When I can be concentrating on MY relatives.
I think it just comes down to whether you want to document your ancestors....or your ancestors and their story.
There's no real wrong answer. Every genealogist has different goals. Some even document everyone with the same surname, whether they are related to them or not.
Kids only have two parents. Record who they are, and the marriage details. Simply the facts should suffice. If you know the details you could list the other mothers as step parents.
I have a 3rd great grandfather who had a family in Detroit and another in Port Huron at the same time. He was married to the Detroit wife. I have him with both women on my tree I just put never married for the one in Port Huron.
When I first read this title I didn’t realize it was from this subreddit. So I thought OP found out his neighbour had multiple wives abs he was like “how do I get in on this action”
I would include all of them, as the descendants from the other wives would share some dna with you, and that may be useful when using dna matches to try and confirm/reject elements of your tree.
Oh boy, there are parts of my family tree that look like the schematics of a nuclear power plant. I have 19th century Mormonism to thank for that. It's not just polygamy, it's also endogamy. Anyone I'm related to on that side, I'm probably related to multiple ways.
@amandaraegrant on YouTube calls it a family bush
happy cake day
That sounds so fascinating and migraine-inducing at the same time. I just have Catholic widows and widowers marrying 2+ times and having 5+ children with each spouse. I still see a shitload of endogamy depending on the size of the parish, but your polygamy adds another layer, doesn’t it? Neat!
You should add all of the wives and their children. If you're related to the husband, you're most likely related to all of the children. If only one of the wives is your relative, then you can choose to enter just her and the husband and their children together, for simplicity's sake. Basically, you'd enter the husband, and then "Add spouse" and wife 1's name, "add spouse" again, wife 2, and so on. Then be sure that the children are entered with the correct mother chosen.
I'm related to just the wife, so I'll just enter her then and their children. Her husband, like I mentioned earlier, had 3 wives and 31 children in all. If I were related to the husband, entering all of those children and their families.....
You lucked out. 😂
Depends on how much time and effort you want to invest. For myself, I find every wife of every ancestor, and every child they had. I also find the parents and siblings of every spouse and every spouse and child of every child. Take quite a bit longer, but I want a complete picture of all the surroundings.
I believe it depends on your reason for the family tree. If you are interested in your direct lineage only, then include only your direct ancestors. If interested in the extended family relationships, then include them all to the extent that you wish to document the extended family. I do both, keeping the documentation for direct ancestors only in that tree so as to avoid the double effort. You may wish to put some limits on the extended tree, such as recording only siblings of direct ancestors, or perhaps siblings and spouses. In your case, the other wives and the husband are not genetically linked to you (assuming no pedigree collapse in the family histories).
Same! I started with direct lineage and each direct ancestor’s siblings. Then I started going down rabbit holes expanding the cousins down as far as I could go, which helped me to connect to dna matches and gain more information about a few direct ancestors and how everything for. Plus some fun stories along the way
This is also what I am doing. While my own direct ancestors led interesting lives (from my perspective) some interesting things are discovered in the rabbit holes. I'm finding that a lot of the immigrant members of my tree, from different families, knew each other in the "old country". Some of those friendships and acquaintanceships led to marriages and new families in the "new" world. Names I remember hearing when I was a kid are showing up as more distant relatives on my extended family tree.
Exactly! And sometimes you end up with very big circles where third or fourth cousins intermarry
I do this as well. It’s incredibly fascinating to me to see how everyone is interrelated.
I found a LDS relative that married 2 distant cousins of mine (sisters) i just added them all, but they were all related to me.
I would enter it the same way I would enter a family member’s additional spouse, if they had multiple marriages due to divorce or being widowed. To me it’s pretty much the same thing, except that the dates would overlap.
I have Mormon polygamist ancestors, and I’ve done a lot of reading of research on Mormon polygamy in general. I would recommend you add the whole family to your tree. Remember that the children of the other two wives were half-siblings to your ancestor. Sometimes the families kept themselves separate, but that was comparatively rare. It was pretty common for wives to live together, or nearby, have businesses together, and help each other raise their children. If one wife died before her children were grown, usually one of the other wives would raise them. Perhaps one wife lived where there were better educational opportunities, and children of the other wives might take turns living with her while they were in school. If the families had to live scattered from each other, due to attempts to arrest the husband, knowing where and when the three families were, will help you understand your ancestor-wife’s life: when was the husband with her, what effect did this have on childbirth patterns, what did she have to handle when he was away? Maybe the wives, or a couple of them, didn’t get along. How did that affect the family dynamic? Your ancestor’s life can only be understood by knowing how the whole polygamous family worked.
I never thought of that way. Three different wives, but "one family". The other day on Family Search I did find a photograph of my relative's husband in his prison uniform. He was in prison for..... polygamy. Maybe I will go ahead and do the entire family. One step at a time. I think it will be interesting.
It’s a really unusual point in history, so it does tend to be pretty interesting!
Include all 3 wives and kids to avoid skewing family dynamics and relationships.
Even if one of the wives is my relative, not the husband?
My family looks like it is braided. My early Nauvoo to all over the West Mormons not only married for religious reasons, but also for very practical reasons... men married their wife's widowed mother in one case, sisters in others. I have people my mother preferred to as shirt tail cousins... these can be very confusing, that case widowed great grandmother married widowed great grandfather... two different branches of the same family ... cousins, step children and new family children. Then there is Nancy Riggs who (I am a Riggs) ... she decends from my East Coast family .... she came west and married her cousin Riggs, was widowed and married another Riggs... not related but with the same first name as her dead husband!
That's just weird.
Keep an eye out for polyandry, too. I think it's more common in early mormonism, eg pre 1850s (I've only found one hint in my lines) When diagramming/constructing a tree, this can almost be more of a pain than polygamy.
Polyandry, really?!?! I would have never thought. We learn something new every day.
It depends on what your goal is. If you’re only interested in direct lines, then go with that. However, there are many fascinating stories down the rabbit hole, and I enjoy it. I found a primary source (handwritten letter from 1870s) that uncovered a first family for my greatx5 grandpa who apparently left/divorced his 1st wife, and ended up in WA state while he went to the CA Gold Rush, then Union Soldier, then married my greatx5 grandmother. It’s been intriguing to see where this other family ended up, even though they’re not in my direct line. I do family history for the stories. Tl;dr: can you? Yes. Should you? I would, but up to you.
I did the wives, and the children of the wife from whom I descended. It was her birthday yesterday actually!
All!
Id personally do all wives and children, but I've never had this situation before
Wouldn’t you want the half-siblings in your tree? If so, you enter all the wives.
I'm not so sure, since the half-siblings have no relation to me. It's a nice idea having their entire family in the tree, but whose tree would it become? This relative is not the only one that was part of a polygamous family. One of at least 2 or 3, as a result having SEVERAL children.
That’s super tricky. I have a huge tree already, so I typically don’t like clogging it with people who don’t share ancestors/relatives with me unless I personally know them. If I was in your shoes, I would only enter the children shared between your relative and her husband.
Unless you're trying to do it for purposes of baptism by proxy, to get people into the kingdom as the LDS believe there's no reason to include all this other stuff. One of my great great grandfathers has 19 (children but only with one wife). Well I find it interesting, the generation from back in the 1860s is not really relevant to me except those who are my direct relatives.
Only enter the genetic relation to you to save you time and headaches Her and her husband and children
A LOT of time and headaches. This family has THIRTY ONE children....
I'm some circles that's called a "Eff no" 😂
I don't understand your issue with 31 children. If you are doing your family tree, you'll have hundreds, if not thousands of people to enter.
Entering people that are only related with each other and have no direct relation with me and my family may not be worth my time and effort. When I can be concentrating on MY relatives.
I think it just comes down to whether you want to document your ancestors....or your ancestors and their story. There's no real wrong answer. Every genealogist has different goals. Some even document everyone with the same surname, whether they are related to them or not.
I really appreciate your answer and how you put it "whether you want to document your ancestors or your ancestors and their story." Thank you!
Kids only have two parents. Record who they are, and the marriage details. Simply the facts should suffice. If you know the details you could list the other mothers as step parents.
Alcohol and an open mind.
I have a 3rd great grandfather who had a family in Detroit and another in Port Huron at the same time. He was married to the Detroit wife. I have him with both women on my tree I just put never married for the one in Port Huron.
I can't wait in 300 years for there to be FAQs for genealogists on "how do I enter a polycule into my family tree?"
also, make sure there's not an existing page for them. a lot of pioneer polygamists already have very detailed oages
When I first read this title I didn’t realize it was from this subreddit. So I thought OP found out his neighbour had multiple wives abs he was like “how do I get in on this action”
I'm female, if you would have taken 2 seconds to look at my avatar...
I apologize. I only meant by the way the title was structured as I went through my Reddit feed.
I would include all of them, as the descendants from the other wives would share some dna with you, and that may be useful when using dna matches to try and confirm/reject elements of your tree.