Why unmarried parents not both on descendants tree.

Question

Which executes a whole line of people.

And impicitly merges  families which don’t  properly belong together

Comments

I tagged this for "tools" and "improvements" because I think you are looking for an improvement to some of the Family Tree Tools. (Of course, to make that improvement happen there would need to be a change to the way "marriages" are recorded, which is something that is requested rather often...)

---

Spouses don't really matter at all when looking at the descendants of a person. Even if they were completely removed, it wouldn't leave out any descendants? So I don't understand what you mean by "executes a whole line of people".

---

I see no reason not to list them thusly (if only the program would let me):

John White had an illegitimate child with Mary Yellow

A.  William White

John then married Jane Blue. They had no children, divorced 1920.

John married second Primrose Green (who brought with her a daughter by her first marriage {to Colin Black}, Violet Black) had a son.

B.  John White Jr

Answer 1

It is possible to list unmarried to each other parents of a child 

What is the correct way to enter unmarried parents? - WikiTree G2G

Parents unmarried - WikiTree G2G

Comments

Trouble is, the descendancy chart shows the spouse(s) of each person (but not unmarried co-parents) and then the children, and seems to imply a connection between the spouse(s) and the children, which is usually right, but sometimes flat wrong.

---

Well, R.J. H., what with the various posts about this type of situation in g2g and possibly the helping hand of someone who will help, Sir W.A. of Kittybrewster will resolve his dilemma. 

He CAN of course "marry" them, contrary to the actual status and contrary to the laws of the land at that time. But then THAT would give a false impression also of their relationship or relations 

He may indeed have to tolerate some "disjunct" family lines and plaster NOTES in various biographies and refer the reader to [[surname-xxxx|forename middle name surname]] on the profile of the woman and on the profile of the man, while at the same time somehow getting the message across that they were not legally espoused according to the laws of the land at that time ... which of course a certain percentage of readers will ignore  

 I don't doubt but what he is clever enough to find a work around for the situation; in fact I'm 99% certain there's some mentioned in the various previous posts on this type of situation