[sabla990]

My father in law started a family tree, it's very nice. My concern is with my husbands listing, is shows his previous wife beside me even though no children were produced in that marriage. And of course, my husband and I have our children listed below us. My question: Should a marriage that ended in divorce be listed on a family tree if no children was produced?

[Jake2008]

I think the making of a family tree is complicated enough, and the most effort is putting direct relatives in.

I can't see where an ex-wife belongs on a family tree, when no children were produced to increase the family, on the family tree.

[sabla990]

Thank you Jake2008, your response is appreciated. I agree, if the marriage ended in divorce and the family tree did not benefit, then it shouldn't be listed. My only challenge is to convince my father in law.

[Oliver2011]

Agreed. If she wants to be a part of the tree, make her the root.

[sabla990]

Cute Oliver2011, not sure she'd appreciate it although that part of her life is dead and buried. She did not ask for this, it's just the miss-placed information of my father in law. My father in law would most likely take it down if I asked, but wanted to make sure I wasn't making a big deal if it really belonged in the family tree.

[dontknownuthin]

It depends on the purpose of the family tree. If it is meant as a historical record, it is more accurate to include the marriage. If it 'a more for a decorative or sentimental purpose, it would be kinder to leave it out.

[Fr_Chuck]

I will disagree, it shows a complete history of the family, a marriage and divorce is part of that history.

I would say, if it is going to be complete and not just to list children it should be listed

[talaniman]

It's his family tree, do your own and leave his alone.