People ommited in geneaolgy report for unknown reason

[dunkinidaho]

Using FTM 14.1 on PC. A family member pointed out to me that she was not included in her generation but was shown as a daughter of her parents. The only thing I can guess is that she has no children. Why would a person not be shown in their specific generation on the genealogy report and yet be shown as a child.

[Elaine ..Spain]

Not sure if I am understanding your query - if not I apologise.

When you do a descendant report the first generation that you see is the name of parents plus all their their children. The children are really the first generation which is why you see all the names in that section. When you go on to the next generation it is the generation of the title person's grandchildren, not their children.

It's difficult to explain! An example.


Descendant report for Charles Wareham

Charles Wareham was born xxx. He died xxx. He married Dinah Bennett on xxx. She was born xxx and died xxx

Charles and Dinah had the following children
- Sarah Wareham was born in xxx She died in xxxx
- John Wareham was born in xxx He died in xxx He married Mary Cook on xxx. She was born xxx and died xxx
- Elizabeth Wareham was born in xxx She died in xxx

- so this section includes the names of all the children that were born to the parents Charles and Dinah - creating generation 1.

----------------
Generation 2

John Wareham was born in xxx He died in xxx. He married Mary Cook.

John and Mary had the following children
- James Wareham was born xxx. He died xxx
- William Wareham was born xxx He died xxx He married Barbara Beck xxx

- this is generation 2 - which is listing the Title person's grandchildren - namely James & William. It would only include Charles & Dinah' children if they had children themselves. Sarah Wareham and Elizabeth Wareham are not in this section as they didn't produce any children to help create generation 2.

-------------

Generation 3 - would continue with just William Wareham and Barbara Beck listing their children - creating generation 3. James Wareham would not be included here as he had no children to contribute to generation 3.

---------------

Does that make sense, or have I totally misunderstood your question!

[dunkinidaho]

Not sure if I am understanding your query - if not I apologise.

When you do a descendant report the first generation that you see is the name of parents plus all their their children. The children are really the first generation which is why you see all the names in that section. When you go on to the next generation it is the generation of the title person's grandchildren, not their children.

It's difficult to explain! An example.


Descendant report for Charles Wareham

Charles Wareham was born xxx. He died xxx. He married Dinah Bennett on xxx. She was born xxx and died xxx

Charles and Dinah had the following children
- Sarah Wareham was born in xxx She died in xxxx
- John Wareham was born in xxx He died in xxx He married Mary Cook on xxx. She was born xxx and died xxx
- Elizabeth Wareham was born in xxx She died in xxx

- so this section includes the names of all the children that were born to the parents Charles and Dinah - creating generation 1.

----------------
Generation 2

John Wareham was born in xxx He died in xxx. He married Mary Cook.

John and Mary had the following children
- James Wareham was born xxx. He died xxx
- William Wareham was born xxx He died xxx He married Barbara Beck xxx

- this is generation 2 - which is listing the Title person's grandchildren - namely James & William. It would only include Charles & Dinah' children if they had children themselves. Sarah Wareham and Elizabeth Wareham are not in this section as they didn't produce any children to help create generation 2.

-------------

Generation 3 - would continue with just William Wareham and Barbara Beck listing their children - creating generation 3. James Wareham would not be included here as he had no children to contribute to generation 3.

---------------

Does that make sense, or have I totally misunderstood your question!

My earlier reply doesn't show here so I'll just say that you have answered my query. That makes sense and teaches me something I didn't know

thanks Elaine