RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: jacquelineve on Friday 05 February 16 10:31 GMT (UK)
-
I have found various newspaper reports re. my ancestors...mostly not too good..but to me
quite amusing, but there was one..even though aquitted of this charge...I have'nt felt happy
passing it on to others researching this person.
Jackie
-
What is that old phrase? "Let sleeping dogs lie"??... it is a hard one - how do you know if people "Need" to be told? Well unless the lack of knowledge puts them at risk...... Might be better to let them find out for themselves...??
-
Sometimes its better to keep quiet and let them "stumble" across it themselves, if they don't then they'll be none the wiser.
I speak from experience on that one............ ::)
-
As I tell people when I am asking them questions, I am not here to judge, but to record.
-
Like PF , I am compiling a record not a judgement. I once put it that we don't own what our ancestors did. If we celebrate the good that they did then we also must accept the bad.
Are you reading this my precious descendants ;) :)
-
I knew that a cousin of my late father had some major problem during WW2 but the details were never spoken about by our side of the family.
However, another direct family member who is doing a tree put the exact details on line. Not very pleasant reading or very thoughtful as there are relatives still alive who may not have known the facts.
I didn't pass this info on to anyone or put it in my tree - too terrible. Better to "let sleeping dogs lie"
Dorrie
-
I think if I did draw a line it would be if any living relatives were affected
-
I'm quite happy to accept all..that's life!I do think we have to be aware of others feelings, but
it's sometimes a little difficult to judge how they will feel.
I remember doing a look-up for someone that said their ancestor was a "lawyer" when in fact his
occupation was "sawyer? and was told that their family did not belong " to this class"
Jackie
-
I remember doing a look-up for someone that said their ancestor was a "lawyer" when in fact his
occupation was "sawyer? and was told that their family did not belong " to this class"
Jackie
Wasn't Inwoods of Northampton was it ? I made the same mistake for a while - transcription v prescription :D
-
Like PF , I am compiling a record not a judgement. I once put it that we don't own what our ancestors did. If we celebrate the good that they did then we also must accept the bad.
Are you reading this my precious descendants ;) :)
Yes, same, compiling a record, not a judgement. May I offer a possible solution to the dilemma. I do up a SCAN DELL sheet perhaps each quarter and send it out to the older generation of my living relatives (so to around 20 or so at the moment, born between 1910 and 1928) .... I fill it up with newspaper cuttings gleaned from the free to search Australian National Library's website TROVE and from the New Zealand's Paper's Past (another great free to search website). I find the oddest cuttings that amuse me and which I think will amuse them too. Some of the cuttings will be about long gone ancestors actions (a divorce, a land application, a quarrel with a neighbour over property, a casualty list from WWI and the like). Some of the cuttings will be about the localities of their own childhoods, and some are just quirky things that I collect along the way. Consequently the oldies love it, they phone each other up, chat about various cuttings, phone me, pass on comments, I get to learn who was who, who was not 'shacked up' with who, who was bridesmaid, flower girl, who wanted to be same, etc, and I can ask the most indelicate questions and get their best responses, as their memories are stimulated by these sheets.
Here's an amusing cutting, everyone reading the SCAN DELL sheet loved it.... (and there's been several threads at RChat about the cutting)
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2177629 13 Dec 1817 Sydney Gaz
Enjoy, and hopefully you will find a way to gently introduce the uncomfortable info to the family ... you might be surprised at who already 'knew' but had not been focusing on that knowledge. :)
Re living relatives and uncomfortable info. There's many a family history group that has ethics policies. It is a no no to provide information about living people to others if that info could cause upset. I will look up and be back, I think I have a link to a large association of family history groups and their Ethics statement.
BACK
http://www.gsv.org.au/images/stories/Forms/Ethics.pdf
"Be sensitive to the hurt that revelations of criminal, immoral,
bizarre or irresponsible behaviour may bring to family members;"
http://www.gsv.org.au/ The Genealogical Society of Victoria
Cheers, JM
-
Is "selective history" worth recording ??
Regards
Malky
-
Its not the recording its the reporting that can be selective
-
David
Honestly can't remember...but this one did stick in my mind..as most of my ancestors
belonged to "that class"
Jackie
-
"its the reporting that can be selective"
But to whom. If one reports selective facts, then it's not accurate. Therefore, it's not history, it's a pretence of history.
Regards
Malky
-
Maybe that's just a glimpse Malky! 😄
-
Once again I will not report sensitive information to living family members. It doesn't mean it is censored or not reported...its not reported now
-
Most of the reports I have passed on..drunkeness-fighting-assaulting sheriff's officers with pokers..
have been accepted..but when it comes to..charges of rape..though aquitted..I myself, feel a
little uneasy.
Jackie
-
I suppose it all depends on how long ago your ancestors lived. If the one doing something that others might find uncomfortable lived in the 17/1800s I don't see a problem. It's only a problem if the person was alive in the 20th century as far as I'm concerned. For instance, I know my grandfather was discharged from the army in 1906 direct to an asylum, apparently a lunatic who was dangerous to himself or others (Army Regulations), but although I sent the details of his early life to my elderly aunt (his one remaining child), I missed out the fact that he was discharged to an asylum or why. After she died, I did tell her daughter. As he was killed on a motor cycle in 1926 when on a perfectly straight road in the countryside, he ran into a tree, no-one alive ever knew him so I don't mind giving his full history now. (Was his death deliberate I wonder, a newspaper report at the time states "how the accident occurred has not yet been definitely ascertained", and I've not been able to find any further information.
-
Is "selective history" worth recording ??
Regards
Malky
Yes, as in fact, all recording of history is selective in a general sense. Afterall, not everything that you or I or those others 'over there' say or do is actually recorded, nor is it of interest to you or me or them :) .... unless of course it is on facebook or other social media.... :) :P ::)
Cheers, JM
-
I always record everything I find but I might be a bit selective about passing it on, more especially if it is within the last century or so. Once a few generations have passed there is less chance of emotional reaction.
There is a difference between academic research and the intimacy of family history where I feel we should be more sensitive toward people's feelings.
Mike.
-
I'm quite happy to accept all..that's life!I do think we have to be aware of others feelings, but
it's sometimes a little difficult to judge how they will feel.
I remember doing a look-up for someone that said their ancestor was a "lawyer" when in fact his
occupation was "sawyer? and was told that their family did not belong " to this class"
Jackie
I had a transcription problem with one of my family. Except I was confused the other way. I was looking at the address, the occupations of the others in the household and couldn't figure why they would be a lawyer. Squinting at the original and seeing it said sawyer made a lot more sense.
As to recoding telling. Like others I record everything but don't necessarily tell family everything unless they specifically ask. Well I tell my husband.
-
I agree with those who have said record everything but be a little selective on what is passed on, particulary if it relates to immediate relatives/ancestors of those to receive the information.
Until the last of my grandfather's siblings died at the end of 2014, we always listed my Great Grandparent's marriage a year earlier than it actually was because nobody knew whether any of their children were aware of the fact their parents had married 5 months before my Great Aunt was born. Obviously if those surviving at the time were aware, they would know we knew but would most likely understand why the date had been entered earlier than it was, namely not to embarass them as its something that generation may well feel. My grandmother was aware of it prior to her marriage because one of the neighbours apparently took great delight in telling her. My grandmother's mother, though, had sworn her daughter to secrecy over the information and apparently we were the first she had ever told because she knew we'd get a copy of the marriage certificate and find out anyway. Since my Great Uncle's death we do list the correct year even though there are people alive who did know one of the parties concerned, but who don't feel the embarassment and stigma the earlier generation may have done about the event. My mother's comment when my grandmother told us was "naughty Nana". ;D
By all means record everything you find, but a little diplomacy needs to be considered when passing on such information, especially with older relatives. Yes the others may find out themselves, but as none of us really know how they will react to certain information, its better to be cautious in my opinion.
-
And when future generations start delving, and find out "ALL", do you think that they will just think that you missed the "ALL" because you were careless and not thorough, or do you think they will ask WHY you saw fit not to include information which is relevant to their past, after all, you have passed down the selective information to them. Is genealogy just a means to tell half a story, or a bit of fun for the spare time. Who gives a damn if it's accurate or not. Oh, wait, isn't that the continuing complaint that we see on RootsChat when references are made about trees on Ancestry. Two half truths do not make a whole truth. I went through this with my family 1 generation back, with lies about 2 generations back. For me, the truth came out in the end, as it will inevitably for you.
Why were they ashamed about their past?
Are you??
Regards
Malky
-
To me its a case of 'you choose your friends' but 'you don't choose your ancestors' so whatever they may or may not have done in the past is nothing whatsoever to do with you or of your making. It's fact and should be recorded.
Just because they may have been charged with a serious crime in the past doesn't make you likely to commit the same crime same as if you may have had a concert pianist as an ancestor doesn't mean that you will be one!
Its the hiding of these facts that make them seem sinful - if brought out into the open they would most likely be noted and forgotten as there would be similar issues in almost everyone's ancestry but if nobody made a fuss about it then accepted and forgotten.
At least that's how I look at it.
Pheno
-
The all is recorded in the all the family tree files I have which will be passed onto my children. By being selective about passing on I meant verbally to older relatives. More for self preservation after learning the hard way the treatment I may get. When I was in my early teens I saw my great aunt's birth certificate and asked why her parent's wedding was 3 months before her birth. To say I was in trouble was an understatement.
I am not ashamed about my past, even if I agree that something that was done by an ancestor was bad it wasn't me who did it. However I recognise that not everyone thinks the same way and will play it by ear how much of the truth someone is happy to hear before telling someone something.
-
I would say keeping the details of a shotgun wedding from someone in their early teens was a very different situation from an adult researching their Family History.
My view is that if I am researching my Family History, then that is what I am doing - and that history may include all manner of things - I don't know what till I research it! Then, having discovered different things that happened in my Family, in their history, I have achieved what I set out to do. I don't see how I could pick and choose which bits of that history I took on board.
If a family member is interested and wants to know what I am discovering, then I will tell them what I have discovered. If they are not interested then I wont indulge in idle gossip for the sake of it - "Hey, guess what, bet you didn't know this but great grandfather was arrested for attacking a policeman".
I cant see what the issue is! Maybe it is just me.......
-
I'm quite happy to accept all..that's life!I do think we have to be aware of others feelings, but
it's sometimes a little difficult to judge how they will feel.
I remember doing a look-up for someone that said their ancestor was a "lawyer" when in fact his
occupation was "sawyer? and was told that their family did not belong " to this class"
Jackie
It is not our place to make judgements if we claim to be family historians we record and make available all the facts we can.
We don't censor or edit the facts as in doing so we show a bias.
If an infant was born a bastard or recoded as an imbecile on a census or was in any other way different from the general population nothing can change that if we suppress the fact we unwittingly stigmatise that person.
If we use synonyms to try to soften the blow we show we think there is a stigma to that person’s situation.
Would you hide the fact that an ancestor only had female children or was wealthy, they are simply facts so why differentiate?
That does not mean we have to shout it from the roof tops or shove it down people’s throats but if someone asks for information then we should do them the honour of supplying the information as fully as we can.
Cheers
Guy
-
Uncomfortable?
It wasn't even MY family.
I was "helping" someone on another genealogy forum.
The OP started with " Just found out today that my grandfather was a hero who gave his life in WW1"
He was looking for info.
Being me, and without thinking, I located the military record for the soldier, confirmed the man's name and a few other details with the poster and explained that I needed to save each page to my own PC before I could pass them over.
It was only then that I realised just how many pages were involved.
Page after page after page
I kept saving them, one page after another without paying attention, until a heading on a letter caught my eye.
By the time I realised what this letter contained, it was too late, I had already told the person that I was sending them and I couldn't back out now
I read just 2 pages and could see that this soldier was no war hero!
I passed everything to the poster
In less than 24hrs after discovering that his grandfather was a war hero, he came face to face with the real version.
To say that I felt uncomfortable was an understatement ! I felt awful
I deleted all files from my PC that same night.
I am bit more cautious now
EDIT:
The man was delared as missing, presumed dead but I had my doubts..because I knew what was waiting for him on his return and that's on top of his antics in France!
-
But the information was out there anyway, for all to find. Neither you nor he can change that. He may not kow the true reasons why it happened, but now, at least he knows what did occur.
Regards
Malky
-
I've 3 or 4 things that aren't common knowledge .
- a marriage after 3 children, who are still alive. I presume they know, but they've never told their cousins . . so I left the date out in my computer version, but it's written in in pencil on my own print-out.
- a distant cousin in prison recently - haven't decided this one yet - why would I upset his siblings maybe?
- alcoholic great-aunt& uncle - will probably include this soon, since that generation are all gone.
I think it's ok to leave a detail out, but not to include false details.
-
I've never told my sister or first cousins that our grandfather deserted in WW1!! He went back to serve eventually.
Strangely, we were always told that our great aunts [grandmother's sisters] were a 'bit off' with him, 'looked down on' him & we had thought it was because he was less educated, but I think it was actually about the desertion.
-
(Re Ann-P's post - several have chipped in since)
So, what he had "discovered" was incorrect. One wonders where he had found that info.
I am sure he was disappointed that it wasn't correct. But surely, if he was interested in his grandfathers life, then it is best he finds out about ...... his grandfathers life, and not the life of someone else. And so much better that it was put right within 24 hours, so he had not had years and years of living with the incorrect version.
-
Lizdb,
You are right but, the grandson was so excited and extremely proud to have learned that very day that his ancestor fought and died in the war.
I can't imagine how he must have felt when he got the papers.
I felt responsible.
-
Oops. I was doing a bit of research for a family and didn't hesitate to forward all the shocking facts I found to them. I did tell them that they may need to consider whether or not they wanted to tell their very elderly father as the events related to his ancestors. The events did happen a long time ago and I was quite excited to find so much about them via old newspapers. :-[
-
I have a private tree and nobody in my family is the least bit interested in genealogy though some like WDYTYA, but that's about as far as it goes. ::)
I'm in 2 minds about this. Of course we gather facts with proper citations but does, for instance, a family member who is adopted and may have no idea need to hear it from me?
If I was a professional being paid I would tell the client to expect the good, the bad and the ugly as who knows what will be uncovered with research but when it comes to family unless they specifically ask a question I prefer to let sleeping dogs lie as it's not my job to impart unasked for information.
In my case the chance of anyone asking anything is pretty slim anyway........
-
I feel that it all ought to be recorded somewhere accessible if it's accurate and backed up, but simply don't pass on "hurtful" information to sensitive people.
If you edit it out, then future readers may wonder perhaps if you were censoring, or were an inefficient researcher.
(I've also got one of those Lawyer / Sawyers - actually, not I think of it, I've two, on different lines - and my first reaction when hearing of one of them from another relative, as being a Lawyer, was - no way! It was a transcription error, that she was most reluctant to admit, but I did manage to convince her finally that father running a sawmill, and sons all involved in wood-related jobs rendered it at least rather unlikely.)
What one generation finds uncomfortable another may not. My parents' generation found the idea of children born to unmarried parents uncomfortable, nowadays no eyelid is blinked at all. Things change, times change.
-
Apologies if I've posted this before on a different thread.
I have researched OH's family quite thoroughly, with the help of his 90 year old uncle.
One old photo showed OH's grandfather in an admin-type role in WW1, signed by grandfather himself - & dated Nov 1915. (Once again thanks to the experts on the Armed Forces board and Cambridgeshire Reg historians who helped me with that).
Now this man was shot in the head on the Somme in April 1915 & sent to England for treatment.
So obviously his treatment and recovery were successful and by the end of the same year he was already back in uniform, albeit in a training battalion.
I explained all the (to me) fascinating background to the 90 year-old. (The man's son). His reply was "no that can't be right, he had to spend the rest of the war learning how to walk and talk again. That's what we were told. Your information must be wrong".
I realised he had been brought up to consider his father something of a hero and his recovery miraculous. I just stopped discussing it with him. I have all the facts, OH knows it all, why would I want to unnecessarily cause distress to a man of that age?
Conversely he is absolutely convinced his parents had to get married as his sister was on the way......in vain I have shown him the evidence of his parents' marriage, well before his sister's birth, he won't believe it. ;D
Pat
-
My mother discovered that her sister was several months old by the time their mother and father got married. My gran had been widowed some years before, my grandfather was a divorcee. My mum decided to challenge Gran about this.
Gran's response? The registrar must have made a mistake! (He was only out by about 9 months, if Gran was correct in her claim!
-
I have a very distant twig in my tree that was recorded in the local newspaper having molested a five year old girl when he was eighteen years of age. The fact was very shocking when I first read about it and the following court case listed in detail that followed. Was was more shocking was the sentence he was given. It was very lenient compared to what he would receive these days. He was more or less let off due to his age. I found this more upsetting but then had to remember that things were different in those days and I can't judge what happens by today's standards. This is something we need to remember when passing on such information to others.
Regards panda
-
I have a very distant twig in my tree that was recorded in the local newspaper having molested a five year old girl when he was eighteen years of age. The fact was very shocking when I first read about it and the following court case listed in detail that followed. Was was more shocking was the sentence he was given. It was very lenient compared to what he would receive these days. He was more or less let off due to his age. I found this more upsetting but then had to remember that things were different in those days and I can't judge what happens by today's standards. This is something we need to remember when passing on such information to others.
Regards panda
I have a similar case in my tree, only the other way round. My nine year old relative was sexually assaulted by a neighbour, he got two months hard labour. Less thnt another family member got for stealing a bag containing a pair of slippers, a pair of shoes and Cuffs links
Jebber
-
There seems to be a little confusion here. I don't think anyone is advocating not recording all of the facts, all of the data we find in our research. What some have said is that sometimes it is best to be a little delicate with others when they ask a question, especially when it is of immediate ancestors in living memory. There have been some great suggestions on how to do this on here.
If a family member does ask a question, perhaps a caveat is better than sugar-coating the truth or omitting salient facts. By warning them up front, they can't really get upset or indignant. Can they? ::)
-
I completely agree pine
-
i couldnt pass this post by! my mums maternal side is a nightmare. again and again their names come up in awful stories, over and over ive read things and thought to myself, this is just crazy. ive had some caught up in the caravan club, others involved in the mafia, others that changed their names and some that were involved in robberies, kidnaps, and one even got caught with a suitcase full of jewellery. im praying they returned all the stolen jewls because i have inherited a 14kt gold, jewel incrusted watch from the very family! all these are from a bunch of siblings, all of them abandoned their children and all of them were known in one way or another to the police. my uncle told me they were spivs. didnt know what that meant until my friend google told me. classic!
when im talking to someone who may have known these people i tread carefully and gentley and hold back a lot of info in case i offend or say something to the wrong person. i once posted here in good faith about a deseased gentleman who was involved in the mafia and i had my cousin message me and insist i take it down in case i got caught!
-
i couldnt pass this post by! my mums maternal side is a nightmare. again and again their names come up in awful stories, over and over ive read things and thought to myself, this is just crazy. ive had some caught up in the caravan club, others involved in the mafia, others that changed their names and some that were involved in robberies, kidnaps, and one even got caught with a suitcase full of jewellery. im praying they returned all the stolen jewls because i have inherited a 14kt gold, jewel incrusted watch from the very family! all these are from a bunch of siblings, all of them abandoned their children and all of them were known in one way or another to the police. my uncle told me they were spivs. didnt know what that meant until my friend google told me. classic!
when im talking to someone who may have known these people i tread carefully and gentley and hold back a lot of info in case i offend or say something to the wrong person. i once posted here in good faith about a deseased gentleman who was involved in the mafia and i had my cousin message me and insist i take it down in case i got caught!
In case you got caught? what did she mean by that?
-
But did you record all of your finds in your research?
-
Some of you may have read another thread on RootsChat..
A person I had never heard of, but who turns out has relatives in common with me, was asking about a close relative of mine who had an unusual middle name which was not a family name, and could it be something to do with illegitimacy as she knew there was some scandal in the family?
I knew why my relative had been given the name that she had and there was no scandal attached at all.
I researched more and found another relative in the same family in prison in the 1911 census, then I found the transcript of the trial at the Old Bailey with the judges summing up and sentence.
This took me about 30 minutes.
I contacted the original enquirer privately to tell them I'd found what she was probably looking for.
There had never been any need to cast aspersions about my closer relative, alive within living memory.
It wasn't difficult to find the truth.
I'm sure you've all heard of Chinese Whispers?
If the truth is told there is less chance of half truths and stories being made up that could hurt the relatives of someone else, who was not involved.
-
Until the last of my grandfather's siblings died at the end of 2014, we always listed my Great Grandparent's marriage a year earlier than it actually was because nobody knew whether any of their children were aware of the fact their parents had married 5 months before my Great Aunt was born.
I told my father that his mother had, another, illegitimate child and that she was pregnant with his elder sister when his parents married - his only question was did I think the child given up for adoption was his dad's as he was married to someone else at the time.
Of course he was the one that pointed out Annie, his eldest half sister, who was also born before his mother married - when I was younger he'd said about having two half sisters, and I knew my grandfather had been widowed and remarried - so I'd assumed the half sisters were from him - nope, one from each. I was pretty sure he wouldn't have been dismayed by it.
After I told him about child no. 2 he did say he remembers hearing about another child before her marriage but he thought it was a stillborn son - so in that case she married when pregnant with her fourth child conceived out of wedlock
-
i have no idea what she meant. i assume seeing as she remembers the man involved as an older man when he had made his millions (i dont know how!) she maybe felt even though he had passed away that someone might be watching us? i didnt ask too much! :o
i have indeed recorded it all, every single last word. 2 reasons, one it took me a LONG time to find them all and their relevant criminal records, plus the children and all the storires that went with it all. and two it is important to remember that no one is going to be alive forever. i know this information because ive worked hard at finding it, but what if no one else is bothered about finding it out for another 100 years? by then some of the documents may have been destroyed. there are a few people still living who were children or teenagers at the time of these dubious siblings. they have told me many stories because i dug and prodded and nagged. if i hadnt done this they wouldnt have told me. if i dont record it somewhere these people will pass without these stories being told.
i have one who worked aboard the queen mary. in my quest to find him (never have found his death record) i posted on a QM forum. i had to expalin that i knew what kind of character he was, and i knew that some things people might remember about him would not be favourable. people are always wary of telling the story in case they offend. i know for a fact that there are people still alive who know things but wont say incase they upset me. i have always said if they dont tell it, it will be lost forever.
-
I record all.
Reporting or sharing with other family members who profess interest is a minefield though - the same piece of shared information unleashes a whole gamut of responses: delight, interest, upset, denial.
It was a quandary and have made the decision that, if asked, I provide what I have found - no comment, no assumption, no notes, no discourse - just the document, newspaper clipping, transcript etc. What happens from then on is up to the "asker".
Cocksie
-
if someone asks for information then we should do them the honour of supplying the information as fully as we can.
I do my genealogy as "my" interest & yes it's great to be able to pass on the family tree, however.....If I find something such as a relative "charged & convicted" of manslaughter in regard to his own mother (which I have) and his mother was a direct 1st cousin of my father, that is recorded in "my" tree but no, I don't pass it on, unless I know for sure that the content will not be relayed to living relatives (close relatives who I know to be alive or descendants of the person who commited the crime) who may not have know although in this instance the person was an only child but I have had no need "yet" to give this info. to anyone apart from my own brother who has a keen interest in our ancestry but doesn't have the time to do what I do as he is tied up with family commitments.
I didn't set out to find this but came across it by pure chance on "google" as the family have a very unusual surname. I knew where the family were from but didn't know much about them so was idly surfing with the surname & area when I found this info. much to my horror & disbelief.
However, had my father been alive when I did find it.........no, I would not have told him as he was too old to be given such shocking news about such a close relative & I would not have hurt my own father in that respect.
If anyone asks for a copy of my family tree, they get the usual BMD's & only significant "good news" items I have.
Annie
-
At times I have had to ask those questions which may have provoked a reaction. e.g. my grandfather was named as a co-respondent in a divorce case. This along with open family stories about another possible sibling made me open to asking the question.
As my family member already knew he was a right royal 'censored' I felt the information wouldn't have caused a great reaction.
If the family member had continually expressed him in a glowingly positive manner , and there were no stories of extra marital siblings, I may not have asked. It would have been filed away in my pile of information and passed onto my son .
I think this is also a reason why I do filter what I find. This first half of my project is for my sons benefit. He will be given the warts and all bits as it doesn't emotionally affect him more than it would others.
So the question could also be asked: Do we filter information depending who we are telling it to?
-
snap Rosinish :)
-
snap Rosinish :)
I hope we are not related ;D
The instance was not in this country I'm glad to say but plenty of newspaper cuttings on the net.
Annie
-
I do my genealogy as "my" interest & yes it's great to be able to pass on the family tree, however.....If I find something such as a relative "charged & convicted" of manslaughter in regard to his own mother (which I have) and his mother was a direct 1st cousin of my father, that is recorded in "my" tree but no, I don't pass it on, unless I know for sure that the content will not be relayed to living relatives (close relatives who I know to be alive or descendants of the person who commited the crime) who may not have know although in this instance the person was an only child but I have had no need "yet" to give this info. to anyone apart from my own brother who has a keen interest in our ancestry but doesn't have the time to do what I do as he is tied up with family commitments.
I didn't set out to find this but came across it by pure chance on "google" as the family have a very unusual surname. I knew where the family were from but didn't know much about them so was idly surfing with the surname & area when I found this info. much to my horror & disbelief.
However, had my father been alive when I did find it.........no, I would not have told him as he was too old to be given such shocking news about such a close relative & I would not have hurt my own father in that respect.
If anyone askes for a copy of my family tree, they get the usual BMD's & only significant "good news" items I have.
Annie
This reply reinforces my belief that we as family historians have a moral duty to be open with the information we discover.
I will explain why in a minute but first a disclaimer.
I am drawing my conclusions based on very minimal facts given in the original posting above. We must be aware that further research into the facts of the case and the relationships within the family could possibly cause a change in my conclusions in limited circumstances.
I also assume the writer is open to discussion of the posting as she brought it up in an open forum.
In the above situation the research has come across a case of manslaughter but we are not told whether it was voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter; on reading the post I get the feeling the writer relates the case as if it was the man murdered his mother, but that is not what the court found.
Due to the conclusion the writer reached she then decides she would have withheld the information from her father to prevent her father knowing about it.
However there is a high possibility he already knew of the incident. He could, for all we know, have been bottling it all up inside him for years and have been thankful for the opportunity to have an open discussion about it without the fear of judgement or distaste. He may even hold some information (but had not been given the chance to provide it) which could have proved the innocence of his cousin.
We don’t know.
I cases like this I think of my mother in law who gave birth to a stillborn child. It was all hushed up her family would not talk about the birth and she was left grieving alone for over 25 years. When talking to me about her daughter’s family tree she mentioned she had given birth to a stillborn baby. When I added him to the tree she was in tears, not of distress but joy that someone acknowledged her baby she had been grieving for in silence for so many years.
I was later told it was like a huge weight had been lifted from the family, everyone had been so frightened of causing hurt they could not see the hurt and damage their silence was causing. My mil took the lack of discussion as a sign of family disapproval.
It is not easy but secrets do more damage in the long term than openness.
Cheers
Guy
-
If I find something such as a relative "charged & convicted" of manslaughter in regard to his own mother (which I have).....He was imprisoned
I didn't set out to find this but came across it by pure chance on "google" as the family have a very unusual surname. I knew where the family were from but didn't know much about them so was idly surfing with the surname & area when I found this info. much to my horror & disbelief.
However, had my father been alive when I did find it.........no, I would not have told him as he was too old to be given such shocking news about such a close relative & I would not have hurt my own father in that respect. My father definitely knew nothing of this as he had no access to the internet & our close relatives (in the country where it occured) had already passed away & by the time of the conviction & imprisonment my father had already passed away but I still would not have given my father such devastating news as the shock of it would have been too much for him.
Annie
This reply reinforces my belief that we as family historians have a moral duty to be open with the information we discover.
I will explain why in a minute but first a disclaimer.
I am drawing my conclusions based on very minimal facts given in the original posting above. We must be aware that further research into the facts of the case and the relationships within the family could possibly cause a change in my conclusions in limited circumstances.
I also assume the writer is open to discussion of the posting as she brought it up in an open forum.
In the above situation the research has come across a case of manslaughter but we are not told whether it was voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter; on reading the post I get the feeling the writer relates the case as if it was the man murdered his mother, but that is not what the court found.
Due to the conclusion the writer reached she then decides she would have withheld the information from her father to prevent her father knowing about it.
However there is a high possibility he already knew of the incident. He could, for all we know, have been bottling it all up inside him for years and have been thankful for the opportunity to have an open discussion about it without the fear of judgement or distaste. He may even hold some information (but had not been given the chance to provide it) which could have proved the innocence of his cousin.
We don’t know.
I cases like this I think of my mother in law who gave birth to a stillborn child. It was all hushed up her family would not talk about the birth and she was left grieving alone for over 25 years. When talking to me about her daughter’s family tree she mentioned she had given birth to a stillborn baby. When I added him to the tree she was in tears, not of distress but joy that someone acknowledged her baby she had been grieving for in silence for so many years.
I was later told it was like a huge weight had been lifted from the family, everyone had been so frightened of causing hurt they could not see the hurt and damage their silence was causing. My mil took the lack of discussion as a sign of family disapproval.
It is not easy but secrets do more damage in the long term than openness.
I think your case has no resemblance to mine....2 totally different topics
A stillborn birth is not manslaughter nor a crime worth imprisonment. Had my father's cousin been murdered by a stranger I still would have refrained from causing my father distress.
Annie
-
If the truth is told there is less chance of half truths and stories being made up that could hurt the relatives of someone else, who was not involved.
That is true, but I don't accept that the 'truth' (however we choose to define it) must always out. It must depend on the severity of the misdemeanour or misfortune, on the personalities involved, and how many are in the circle.
I remember my mother saying I almost had a sister (I am her only child) but not any further details. I presume it was a miscarriage, not a stillbirth, as no other births are recorded. Her uncles however were not talked about, for reasons I have already mentioned in another thread.
My mother-in-law was a very nice person, but my wife says some facets of her family were simply not discussed. So far we have discovered no skeletons beyond the common peccadilloes such as shotgun weddings. It might have been more titillating for us, but I'm not sure that the benefits would necessarily have outweighed the embarrassment?
On the debit side, a very good friend of ours was unaware of his father's existence for about 50 years because (I believe) he suffered badly in WW2 so that his wife abandoned him to an institution. The son traced him (genealogy I think) and sought him out there. I'm not sure of a pleasant way to do that for all concerned.
-
I think your case has no resemblance to mine....2 totally different topics
A stillborn birth is not manslaughter nor a crime worth imprisonment. Had my father's cousin been murdered by a stranger I still would have refrained from causing my father distress.
Annie
I was not saying they were the same I was trying to explain how people can unintentionally get hurt when things are not discussed.
Cheers
Guy
PS instead of using pretty colours to add text to another persons posting why not simply use the [/quote] tag to end the quote and allow a comment to be added.
The way you have done it looks as if I have added some of the the remarks you have not even been consistent in the colours used with the result it looks as if different people have added the accentuated comments
-
On the Lawyer / Sawyer thing ... might I (as a lawyer myself) just observe that if you THINK the occupation is recorded as "lawyer" ... it is almost certainly NOT.
Because, you see, we do not describe our occupation as "lawyer", and never did.
Some of us are solicitors, some are barristers-at-law (or "utter barristers", to give them their correct title!) more usually simply decribed as barristers, and there used to be attorney-at-law, proctors and advocates. There are obviously professors of law out there, as well. And ALL, when asked to record their occupation, would, will, did and still do, give their correct professional title. Which is never "lawyer".
So if you think you've got a lawyer in the family ... I'm afraid you've probably got a sawyer.
Look on the bright side, though ... I've yet to hear a sawyer joke, have you?
-
It is always difficult to decide who to tell what to. When I first started researching years ago, I found a post that was looking for my family. It turned out that I had a cousin that I didn't know existed, she had been given up for adoption by my aunt and the whole thing was hushed up. My grandmother died thinking her daughter's secret was safe, and it probably would have been if no-one started digging into the family. It turns out that other members of the family had also seen this and been in contact with her, but pronounced her a fraud and had no further contact. Because I chose to stay in contact with her, the family have had not further contact with me. She had too much information and the family resemblance cannot be denied.
My grandmother also passed away believing that the fact that she had my father and his sister before she married was also well buried and would have been if they had not needed proof of paternity for an ancestral passport. Amongst the papers was grandma's marriage cert. To say that my dad was horrified was an understatement, being of that generation that such activities were frowned upon. But now with more digging I have another cousin and it looks as if my dad and his siblings may have had one that they did not know about.(still working on that one with new cousin)
The point is the truth will out, it just depends on how it is dealt with, the information is out there and will be found if folk like us look for it. It just is up to us to be sensitive as to how we disperse this information...............
But I do record it all..............
-
I've 3 or 4 things that aren't common knowledge .
- a marriage after 3 children, who are still alive. I presume they know, but they've never told their cousins . . so I left the date out in my computer version, but it's written in in pencil on my own print-out.
- a distant cousin in prison recently - haven't decided this one yet - why would I upset his siblings maybe?
- alcoholic great-aunt& uncle - will probably include this soon, since that generation are all gone.
I think it's ok to leave a detail out, but not to include false details.
Would you put someone's alcoholism into a tree? Where would you put it and why? I ask because it's not something I've considered before.
Best regards,
Josephine
-
I've put my 2 x g.grandfather's alcoholism into my tree, but then it wasn't a secret. My mum told me when I was only a child, long before I thought of researching my family tree, that his wife was wealthy when they married (I've proved that to be true, she was left houses and other things in a will by an elderly lady) and that her husband drank away all her money. If that wasn't proof enough, his death certificate rather proves it, he died of Congestive Apoplexy caused by excessive drinking, which was the conclusion at an Inquest.
I've put the information about my 2 x g.grandfather in the notes my tree program has for each person, and the cause of his death is, likewise, shown on my tree.
-
LizzieW, if his drinking hadn't had an effect on his finances and hadn't played an obvious role in his death, do you think you still would have noted it?
To what extent do people include undesirable or unpleasant traits/addictions/etc. in their trees?
I saw an online tree once that pertained to a distant relative; as I looked through it, the notes contained info on some individuals that went something like this: family lore has it that he was a violent drunk who beat his wife; she and her daughter haven't spoken in years because the daughter is a lesbian (this was about someone who was probably still living); he was bad-tempered, so no wonder the marriage was unhappy; and so on.
I've been researching one of my g-g-grandfathers who seems to have gotten into trouble with the law a number of times due to excessive drinking: he'd drink and then sometimes he became violent and other times he was rowdy enough to get charged with disturbing the peace. In his case, I would mention it in my notes for him because of the way I learned about it, but I hadn't thought to include that info on other relatives who had drinking problems.
I'll have to give this some thought.
Best regards,
Josephine
-
Josephine,
You have raised some interesting points there. Recording facts, pleasant or otherwise, is one thing; behaviours, attitudes, addictions, etc. are another. I do record "family stories" as such, but as yet haven't had to record an "unpleasant" one.
That tree you found is a bit of poor form though. :(
-
Anecdotal information on living people is surely a step too far!
If there is documented evidence for such things I would record them as 'Facts' under the appropriate heading: Newspaper Cuttings, etc. If it is family knowledge or rumour passed by word of mouth I would keep a note of it but possibly not pass it on if it might be sensitive or controversial.
Mike.
-
It's a fine line between actual anecdote or even fact and someone's opinion.
-
I think your case has no resemblance to mine....2 totally different topics
A stillborn birth is not manslaughter nor a crime worth imprisonment. Had my father's cousin been murdered by a stranger I still would have refrained from causing my father distress.
Annie
I was not saying they were the same I was trying to explain how people can unintentionally get hurt when things are not discussed.
Cheers
Guy
PS instead of using pretty colours to add text to another persons posting why not simply use the
tag to end the quote and allow a comment to be added.
The way you have done it looks as if I have added some of the the remarks you have not even been consistent in the colours used with the result it looks as if different people have added the accentuated comments
[/quote]
Sorted!!! I was in a rush to go out as it happens.
Instead of "digging me up" for my errors, maybe you should have read my post properly ???
If I find something such as a relative "charged & convicted" of manslaughter in regard to his own mother (which I have).....
In the above situation the research has come across a case of manslaughter but we are not told whether it was voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter; on reading the post I get the feeling the writer relates the case as if it was the man murdered his mother, but that is not what the court found.
Due to the conclusion the writer reached she then decides she would have withheld the information from her father to prevent her father knowing about it.
I cases like this I think of my mother in law who gave birth to a stillborn child.
Can you not differentiate between my words.......("charged & convicted" of manslaughter)?
That does not equate to your words "on reading the post I get the feeling the writer relates the case as if it was the man murdered his mother, but that is not what the court found."
Does it really matter (in your words) "whether it was voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter".........the fact is he was convicted & jailed but also by his own admission.
You are now retracting the fact that you were compairing my story & reasoning for not relaying it, to your story which (in your words were) "I cases like this I think of my mother in law who gave birth to a stillborn child".........I won't "dig you up" on your grammar on that sentence though ::)
If that's not a comparison then what is it ???
My story was to illustrate horrific findings, which I didn't set out to look for but how it can affect close loved ones & best not mentioned.
My father was 90 yrs old & time was not on his side so there is no way on this earth I would intentionally have given him the chance of his life being shortened by a heart attack through shock.
So, to finish off, I did not make any assumptions or come to any "conclusion" on the "manslaughter" case, unlike your assumption of me, your words "Due to the conclusion the writer reached".
My info. is in black & white in the newspapers along with a photo of the perpetrator & the whole story of physical abuse/violence & starvation of the mother.
Annie
-
Would you put someone's alcoholism into a tree? Where would you put it and why? I ask because it's not something I've considered before.
One of my wife's g-g-grandfathers died in 1855 of cirrhosis, after losing his youngest son, father, wife and mother over the previous 6 or 7 years. It's too far back to have heard of 'alcoholism', but that sounds like a possible scenario?
-
RE: Alcoholism.
Interesting the things we come across. I guess it would ,once again, depend on what makes it important. To explain many mentions of court appearances within newspapers- I have no problems including it. There are a series of behaviors' that can be explained - not excused- with alcoholism.
To add it to a family tree because it is common FAMILY knowledge without any other reason gives me pause. I would have to understand how its inclusion would be noteworthy
:)
-
If my tree is for me and my descendants rather than being public, I would include anecdotes. I think they can add to the bigger picture and tells something of their personalities. I would tell the stories to any other close relatives if they were interested - descendants of other branches would be unlikely to want to read this kind of more personal information so probably no point including it on a public tree.
I don't agree with looking at ancestors through rose colored glasses, which I think some people do. They are long dead, and I am interested in them warts and all, and I am sure that many of them I probably would not like.
I do think though, that often it is the stories of bad behavior/traits tend to get passed down rather than the stories of how nice and kind they may have been. Possibly the negative stories were more shocking or had more impact on family members and therefore were remembered.
I have numerous small anecdotes relating to my family ... none of them are good things ....
-
.....
http://www.gsv.org.au/images/stories/Forms/Ethics.pdf
"Be sensitive to the hurt that revelations of criminal, immoral,
bizarre or irresponsible behaviour may bring to family members;"
http://www.gsv.org.au/ The Genealogical Society of Victoria
ADD
http://www.affho.org/affho/ethics.php
If you are a member of a family history group in Australia, please remind your Management Committee of the following
http://www.affho.org/affho/nick_vine_hall_award.php
" The late Nick Vine Hall fervently supported and represented AFFHO at a National level in a S ave the Census Campaign in the mid 1980's. Nick utilised his personable skills as a researcher, author, radio presenter, and speaking engagements towards the final achievement that was announced by the Federal Government of their acceptance of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report Saving our Census and Preserving Our History . This permitted citizens across Australia to “opt in” and allow retention of their 2001 and future Census information, under closed access for 99 years, by the National Archives of Australia, and in so doing, made a valuable contribution to preserving Australia's history for future generations. "
Cheers, JM
-
Each circumstance is different, but I think sometimes knowing things about our ancestors can help explain certain traits or personalities as they may shape how our parents, and grandparents were brought up, which in turn can shape us.
Digging around in the last can be enlightening too - i was always told of my staunchly religious strict teetotal family, and I found this great great grandmother living and working in a public house in the 1851 census with her licenced victualler father. If it wasn't for a couple of unpleasant family anecdotes I would not have known about her religious persuasion and I wouldn't have thought twice about finding her in a pub. This helps me understand her a little better. Her attitudes and beliefs then affected later generations.
Added:obviously these stories are of no interest to anyone but direct descendants (and I have found none as yet), but I would pass them on if requested.
-
Josephine,
You have raised some interesting points there. Recording facts, pleasant or otherwise, is one thing; behaviours, attitudes, addictions, etc. are another. I do record "family stories" as such, but as yet haven't had to record an "unpleasant" one.
That tree you found is a bit of poor form though. :(
Pinefamily, based on your experience, I wonder if it depends on whether we have "had" to record that kind of info due to the bigger story.
I saw that tree a few years ago on a site that didn't have a privacy option. I checked recently and it doesn't seem to be there anymore.
Best regards,
Josephine
-
My father was 90 yrs old & time was not on his side so there is no way on this earth I would intentionally have given him the chance of his life being shortened by a heart attack through shock ....
My info. is in black & white in the newspapers along with a photo of the perpetrator & the whole story of physical abuse/violence & starvation of the mother.
Annie
Annie,
You knew your father and you know you made the right decision to spare him. What an awful story, so traumatic.
Best regards,
Josephine
-
RE: Alcoholism.
Interesting the things we come across. I guess it would ,once again, depend on what makes it important. To explain many mentions of court appearances within newspapers- I have no problems including it. There are a series of behaviors' that can be explained - not excused- with alcoholism.
To add it to a family tree because it is common FAMILY knowledge without any other reason gives me pause. I would have to understand how its inclusion would be noteworthy
:)
DavidG02, I guess that's how I've felt, without really thinking about it.
There's also a question of whether or not it is relevant to include this as a medical condition, which I hadn't considered before. Should this information (alcoholism) be included in medical notes?
Best regards,
Josephine
-
If my tree is for me and my descendants rather than being public, I would include anecdotes. I think they can add to the bigger picture and tells something of their personalities. I would tell the stories to any other close relatives if they were interested - descendants of other branches would be unlikely to want to read this kind of more personal information so probably no point including it on a public tree.
I don't agree with looking at ancestors through rose colored glasses, which I think some people do. They are long dead, and I am interested in them warts and all, and I am sure that many of them I probably would not like.
I do think though, that often it is the stories of bad behavior/traits tend to get passed down rather than the stories of how nice and kind they may have been. Possibly the negative stories were more shocking or had more impact on family members and therefore were remembered.
I have numerous small anecdotes relating to my family ... none of them are good things ....
Ruskie, I tend to feel the same way, but sometimes I wonder if it isn't better to let them have the forgiveness of the grave. I hope that I am remembered by the nice things I've done (or tried to do) and that my bad points aren't memorialized in a relative's tree. (Oh, no, something new to keep me up at night! LOL.)
Best regards,
Josephine
-
You have a good point there Josephine. And of course a few bad stories about an ancestor does not mean they were necessarily bad people all the time ... (But maybe some of them were) .... ;) :)
-
There's also a question of whether or not it is relevant to include this as a medical condition, which I hadn't considered before. Should this information (alcoholism) be included in medical notes?
Best regards,
Josephine
I think its an individual choice. At what point do we stop entering information? Do we mention the mumps at 3 or the chicken pox at 4? For me it gets back to relevance.
A family member has never married , not because of his sexuality , but because he prefers a bottle over a bottle blonde. Is it relevant? We see many instances of family trees where siblings are mentioned as single , with no further qualifications. I am not certain how I will resolve this - currently listed as single.
I myself have issues with alcohol. Am I an alcoholic? Not certain I would qualify medically but others may say I am if I cant have a drink without wanting another. Is it worth mentioning on a family tree? It may well be the last thing I type in as I slip off the perch.
-
Each circumstance is different, but I think sometimes knowing things about our ancestors can help explain certain traits or personalities as they may shape how our parents, and grandparents were brought up, which in turn can shape us.
Ruskie, I agree. But I have a level of curiosity that other relatives do not share.
Here's a different example. I know it would hurt my (deceased) grandfather deeply if he knew that, as a result of me accessing his military record, I know that he got syphilis from an encounter with a stranger while he was married to my grandmother. I don't mind knowing this but I am sure that, if my brother were doing the research, he might neglect to mention that particular fact and he would definitely not record it anywhere for future generations to learn (to protect our Grampy's pride and so as not to dishonour his memory).
Maybe a lot of it goes back to the adage, "Don't speak ill of the dead."
I'm not suggesting that original records be censored but I think it's a given that researchers will be the ones to decide if they want to include that kind of sensitive information in the files they share with family.
I don't tend to censor when it comes to closer family but, with more distant cousins, I do sometimes withhold the uglier truths unless it's part of telling a bigger story and then I have to disclose and hope for the best.
Best regards,
Josephine
-
Guy a question.
This is not whether there is or isn't. Would you list someones same-sex attraction , even if they have asked you to keep it secret as it would hurt a living family member?
I understand its an hypothetical but I want to see where , if any, your boundaries are?
I applaud your approach but I wouldn't follow it.
-
You have a good point there Josephine. And of course a few bad stories about an ancestor does not mean they were necessarily bad people all the time ... (But maybe some of them were) .... ;) :)
LOL, Ruskie, sometimes the bad ones had the most fun and therefore told the best stories.
;)
-
My father was 90 yrs old & time was not on his side so there is no way on this earth I would intentionally have given him the chance of his life being shortened by a heart attack through shock ....
Annie,
You knew your father and you know you made the right decision to spare him. What an awful story, so traumatic.
Best regards,
Josephine
Thanks Josephine,
The story affected me when I read it so I can only speculate how my father would have taken it.
There are family still alive (cousins of the perpetrator) & their parents (siblings of the woman who died) who are more closely related than my father was. They may have been in close contact too, living in the same country (I'm not sure on that)?
I have sent reports etc. in the past on my family tree to the cousins, one is actually a Policeman!!! but no way would I include that unless specifically asked if I knew about it. I wouldn't lie about finding it but I very much doubt the family would wish to be "associated" with it, being so closely connected & the trauma of it all, I guess they would prefer it to be "left alone" as it was their aunt.
Annie
-
I myself have issues with alcohol. Am I an alcoholic? Not certain I would qualify medically but others may say I am if I cant have a drink without wanting another. Is it worth mentioning on a family tree? It may well be the last thing I type in as I slip off the perch.
Now I have a mental image of someone on the verge of death insisting on typing one last line into his (or her) family history program.
;D
-
I myself have issues with alcohol. Am I an alcoholic? Not certain I would qualify medically but others may say I am if I cant have a drink without wanting another. Is it worth mentioning on a family tree? It may well be the last thing I type in as I slip off the perch.
Now I have a mental image of someone on the verge of death insisting on typing one last line into his (or her) family history program.
;D
With all the medical equipment beeping and twirping I am certain they wont hear my IPhone tapping away ;)
-
Thanks Josephine,
The story affected me when I read it so I can only speculate how my father would have taken it.
There are family still alive (cousins of the perpetrator) & their parents (siblings of the woman who died) who are more closely related than my father was. They may have been in close contact too, living in the same country (I'm not sure on that)?
I have sent reports etc. in the past on my family tree to the cousins, one is actually a Policeman!!! but no way would I include that unless specifically asked if I knew about it. I wouldn't lie about finding it but I very much doubt the family would wish to be "associated" with it, being so closely connected & the trauma of it all, I guess they would prefer it to be "left alone" as it was their aunt.
Annie
Annie,
A friend of my family's (a young girl of 17) was murdered 30 years ago; the case has never been solved. It took more than two decades before I stopped dreaming about her at certain times of the year. Her death was so traumatic -- I cannot imagine what family members go through.
Some things are better left alone. Sometimes it is merciful to withhold facts that would only cause undue suffering. We can only hope that we make the right decision in such sensitive times.
Best regards,
Josephine
-
With all the medical equipment beeping and twirping I am certain they wont hear my IPhone tapping away ;)
LOL, I forgot about phones! I was imagining someone having to fight off the ambulance attendants to stay at a computer. Ha!
-
Annie,
Regarding the incident you refer to, wouldn't members of the close and distant family be aware of this tragic event? (particularly if reported in newspapers at the time) :-\
And yes Josephine, some of the naughty ones are more interesting to research, and easier too if their names ended up in the papers. :)
-
Annie,
Regarding the incident you refer to, wouldn't members of the close and distant family be aware of this tragic event? (particularly if reported in newspapers at the time) :-\
And yes Josephine, some of the naughty ones are more interesting to research, and easier too if their names ended up in the papers. :)
Perhaps it depends on how old the family members were at the time or their sex?
My mother knew nothing of the fact that her father's cousin had killed his wife, despite them all living in the same part of town. She was about 14 at the time, I don't know if it was kept from her because she was female because her younger brother certainly knew and told his daughter (my cousin) about it. Though he knew no details he did say there was a murder committed by a family member.
I only looked into it recently and found it on the FindMyPast newspaper collection with two reports and also doing a google search of his name the case is mentioned in a book about (Dame) Rose Heilbron. He was actually convicted of manslaughter and got 10 years.
My tree is private and I don't do the Ancestry sharing thing so I have no qualms about putting these facts in there but if I was to go public (very unlikely) I'd have to think about any consequences, would there be a backlash if any of his children were now on Ancestry?
On another note I have 2 sibling cousins who were adopted, now I'm not sure if they even know this as it's been many years since I've seen them. Maybe they do, maybe they don't but I don't feel it's my business to inform the world, so they are on my tree as being children of the parents.
-
There have been some good points made on here about information/anecdotes/etc. I think the question we should all ask ourselves is, how is this relevant to our family history? Does it affect our ancestors' lives, or what bearing did it have on their future behaviour/actions? If the answer is little or none, then perhaps it is not worth noting. If the answer is the opposite, then it should be noted for posterity, warts and all. The two things that may affect this are public sharing of trees, and those in living memory.
-
Annie,
Regarding the incident you refer to, wouldn't members of the close and distant family be aware of this tragic event? (particularly if reported in newspapers at the time) :-\
And yes Josephine, some of the naughty ones are more interesting to research, and easier too if their names ended up in the papers. :)
Perhaps it depends on how old the family members were at the time or their sex?
My mother knew nothing of the fact that her father's cousin had killed his wife, despite them all living in the same part of town. She was about 14 at the time, I don't know if it was kept from her because she was female because her younger brother certainly knew and told his daughter (my cousin) about it. Though he knew no details he did say there was a murder committed by a family member.
I only looked into it recently and found it on the FindMyPast newspaper collection with two reports and also doing a google search of his name the case is mentioned in a book about (Dame) Rose Heilbron. He was actually convicted of manslaughter and got 10 years.
My tree is private and I don't do the Ancestry sharing thing so I have no qualms about putting these facts in there but if I was to go public (very unlikely) I'd have to think about any consequences, would there be a backlash if any of his children were now on Ancestry?
On another note I have 2 sibling cousins who were adopted, now I'm not sure if they even know this as it's been many years since I've seen them. Maybe they do, maybe they don't but I don't feel it's my business to inform the world, so they are on my tree as being children of the parents.
I've just checked on Ancestry and about 4 or 5 people have the man who killed his wife on their tree. They only have the birth and death of him from the BMD indexes. Nothing more as he is about as distant from them as I am. 1st cousin 2x removed.
-
Unfortunately now you claim to be quoting a previous post whilst displaying an amended post.
This simply distorts the truth of what was originally written.
However I am sure this is a genuine error rather than an attempt to deceive.
Sorted!!! I was in a rush to go out as it happens.
Instead of "digging me up" for my errors, maybe you should have read my post properly ???
If I find something such as a relative "charged & convicted" of manslaughter in regard to his own mother (which I have).....
In the above situation the research has come across a case of manslaughter but we are not told whether it was voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter; on reading the post I get the feeling the writer relates the case as if it was the man murdered his mother, but that is not what the court found.
Due to the conclusion the writer reached she then decides she would have withheld the information from her father to prevent her father knowing about it.
I cases like this I think of my mother in law who gave birth to a stillborn child.
Can you not differentiate between my words.......("charged & convicted" of manslaughter)?
That does not equate to your words "on reading the post I get the feeling the writer relates the case as if it was the man murdered his mother, but that is not what the court found."
If you read what I wrote you would see I did make the differentiation by the use of the words “I get the feeling”. If I had simply written the writer relates the case as the man murdered his mother, that would be a different matter but the expression I used made the differentiation.
Does it really matter (in your words) "whether it was voluntary manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter".........the fact is he was convicted & jailed but also by his own admission.
Yes it does matter, the difference between the two is the difference between a person doing something knowing that what he/she was doing would result in death and a person causing a death through irresponsibility or recklessness.
You are now retracting the fact that you were compairing my story & reasoning for not relaying it, to your story which (in your words were) "I cases like this I think of my mother in law who gave birth to a stillborn child".........I won't "dig you up" on your grammar on that sentence though ::)
If that's not a comparison then what is it ???
My story was to illustrate horrific findings, which I didn't set out to look for but how it can affect close loved ones & best not mentioned.
My father was 90 yrs old & time was not on his side so there is no way on this earth I would intentionally have given him the chance of his life being shortened by a heart attack through shock.
So, to finish off, I did not make any assumptions or come to any "conclusion" on the "manslaughter" case, unlike your assumption of me, your words "Due to the conclusion the writer reached".
My info. is in black & white in the newspapers along with a photo of the perpetrator & the whole story of physical abuse/violence & starvation of the mother.
Annie
That is exactly why I stated in my disclaimer “I am drawing my conclusions based on very minimal facts given in the original posting above. We must be aware that further research into the facts of the case and the relationships within the family could possibly cause a change in my conclusions in limited circumstances.”
You have since given more details for instance
However, had my father been alive when I did find it.........no, I would not have told him
Then later it seems your father was alive at the time
My father was 90 yrs old & time was not on his side so there is no way on this earth I would intentionally have given him the chance of his life being shortened by a heart attack through shock.
It seems you are confusing yourself in and effort to discredit what I wrote based on the facts you had given originally.
I would also add I have not checked that the quote links here refer to the correct posting there may be errors but it is easy enough to trawl through the thread to ensure the link points to the correct entry
Cheers
Guy
-
- alcoholic great-aunt& uncle - will probably include this soon, since that generation are all gone.
I think it's ok to leave a detail out, but not to include false details.
Would you put someone's alcoholism into a tree? Where would you put it and why? I ask because it's not something I've considered before.
Maybe I won't put it in . . I included it in pencil because it weighed on my 90-year-old aunt's mind. It was she who started me off on family history and was very enthusiastic, but she burst into tears whenever she talked about her uncle B and his wife . .no violence, but steady drinking and disorganisation and the rest of the family holding it together for the kids . .
-
so im reading all these posts and im thinking to myself, surely it doesnt matter?
are any of us related to a murder/rapist/drug dealer etc, in our generation. lots of us have people in our family who we would rather not be related to but we are. i for one have a member of my family who has served jail time ove rand over again. i wish not to associate with him but i will not deny to anyone im related to them. what because he shares some dna with me i have somehow caught his 'badness' surely it is nurture rather than nature in this and most cases? its like saying you wont admit your related to someone who is homosexual. its not catching, nor does it define who i am.
sorry getting a but heavy for a sunday morning. i just find it so odd that you wouldnt record something in your tree because it might offend someone. it doesnt define who you are or anyone related to you is, its just a story, a memory.
-
Here's a different example. I know it would hurt my (deceased) grandfather deeply if he knew that, as a result of me accessing his military record, I know that he got syphilis from an encounter with a stranger while he was married to my grandmother. I don't mind knowing this but I am sure that, if my brother were doing the research, he might neglect to mention that particular fact and he would definitely not record it anywhere for future generations to learn (to protect our Grampy's pride and so as not to dishonour his memory).
This example illustrates how personal the decision is. We would all (I guess) assume that this grandfather would hope his misdemeanour would remain hidden. So the decision may hinge on how the living remember him - if we think of him as an old rogue, who cares? or if not, we might collude in keeping shtumm. If it's an unrelated politician though, no holds barred :)
Of course our actions can't hurt them, once dead - so it's just choosing whether to risk offending the living, and asking what purpose might be served by revealing the facts.
-
On a more recent note my niece got married last year and wanted photos of herself when she was a young child. Unknown to me her real father who walked out on her and her mother took all her baby photos and she had none to put on a family PowerPoint to be displayed at the wedding reception. I gave her the photos I had and also broached the subject that I had photos of her with her biological father(she sees her step dad as her father as he has raised her). It was a difficult conversation and only one I felt we could have once she was an adult. I passed these photos onto her as well. They belong to her and if she wishes to share them with her children in the future that is her choice.
Regards panda
-
Guy a question.
This is not whether there is or isn't. Would you list someones same-sex attraction , even if they have asked you to keep it secret as it would hurt a living family member?
I understand its an hypothetical but I want to see where , if any, your boundaries are?
I applaud your approach but I wouldn't follow it.
That seems at face value a simple question but it actually contains many unknowns.
A consideration would be whether the person had divulged the information to me in confidence or whether I had discovered the information through some other means.
If I had discovered the information in the course of research I would not be breaching any trust that the information would be kept secret.
As I live in a country where same sex attraction is not illegal that would remove many obstacles, but if I lived in a country where same sex attraction was illegal that in itself cause may problems (such as legal duty, consequences etc.).
There is therefore no legal duty to reveal the information and no legal ramifications involved for that “someone”.
The next consideration would have to be the relationship between “living family member” and myself.
If for instance the “living family member” was my wife that would be different than if the “living family member” was not connected with me.
It would also depend on whether the person was in a same sex relationship with their partner or not.
These are just four considerations of many that I would have to make before coming to my decision.
What I could say is there would be no reason to divulge the information for simply salacious reasons.
Cheers
Guy
-
I suppose on this thread I can reintroduce the question which is now in my tagline: (Wanted: Charles Percy Liversidge). Try as I might, I can't find out what happened to my great-uncle after early 1903, when he was in Gore's Liverpool Directory as a Supervisor of Agents at the Lancs & Yorks Insurance Company - a respectable position. Of course there are all sorts of possible explanations for a disappearance, but family folklore from a usually reliable source - sadly now dead - claimed that he 'put his head in a gas oven'. If that were true there should be a findable record?
In 1901 he was unmarried aged 28. To amuse ourselves we invented a scenario saying he was gay and was caught fiddling the books. I doubt we will find out, but I would just like 'closure', as is often said these days.
-
Hi
For my in depth research I have basically started from my grandparents who were all born in the 1870s. I have bare bones for my parents, uncles and aunts (all deceased) and myself who is the only living person in my tree. This means that if I find anything of a delicate nature there is at least one clear generation between that and the living. Others may disagree with my approach but as far as I'm concerned it is my tree so I will do it my way.
We may be aware of, or we may discover whilst researching, sensitive information from more recent times and the question is what do we do about it. In my case I do nothing but others will argue that it should be included. I'm sure that many times it may not be an issue because it turns out everybody knew but what if they didn't? How will people directly impacted behave? Do we have a right to potentially turn other peoples lives upside down? I say no.
Andy
-
Regarding the same sex issue, let me ask this: would you record that an ancestor was heterosexual?
-
Regarding the same sex issue, let me ask this: would you record that an ancestor was heterosexual?
In the period we are usually discussing, (a) marriages were always heterosexual and (nearly always) meant that the partners were, and (b) homosexuality was generally illegal. So implying that the hetero-/ homo- choice was a balanced one seems to me disingenuous and slightly provocative.
Of course things are now different, but in family trees we can presume that married people were heterosexual and single ones may have been. But for my grandmother's generation (born in the 1870s) a serious imbalance in the sexes developed because of mass slaughter in various places, and for some no acceptable men were available.
-
Thank you for your response Guy
Regarding the same sex issue, let me ask this: would you record that an ancestor was heterosexual?
I thought this might come up :) I raised same sex attraction because there are still stigmas with it. Especially from those of an earlier generation. Many of us now , as Guy pointed out , recognize that it is legal and it shouldn't be an issue.
But it still can be.
Would I specifically notate someone as heterosexual? No but I could think of a few reasons why I would
-
Thank you for your response Guy
Regarding the same sex issue, let me ask this: would you record that an ancestor was heterosexual?
I thought this might come up :) I raised same sex attraction because there are still stigmas with it. Especially from those of an earlier generation. Many of us now , as Guy pointed out , recognize that it is legal and it shouldn't be an issue.
But it still can be.
Would I specifically notate someone as heterosexual? No but I could think of a few reasons why I would
Many homosexual individuals would be identified on a family tree in two ways, first by the sex of the individual and secondly by the sex of their partner. If they were not in a relationship I would not normally make any mention of their sexual orientation.
I would have more problem with intersexed individuals and to some extent a transgender person is more difficult to identify on a family tree.
No family tree programs as far as I am aware currently allow a third sex or even a transgender allocation.
This is a short coming of family tree programs not intersexed individuals or transgender individuals.
Cheers
Guy
-
What do you all think about this:-
Put in that which is subject to public record, leave out the family Chinese Whispers and title tattle ? Especially if your tree can be accessed via the internet?
A birth certificate will not tell you whether the child was born at term or premature.
Death certificates give a cause of death, which can then be researched. Sometimes parish registers give cause of death, if you're lucky, coroners' records gives cause of death of those investigated.
The 1911 census asks how many children have been born to a couple and how many are still living.
Having said that, I have an original 5 January 1881 Fun Magazine, which among the recommendations for New Years Resolutions suggests:-
"Must fill up the census-paper with truthful particulars as to my age and all the rest of it"
nil novi sub sole
-
What do you all think about this:-
Put in that which is subject to public record, leave out the family Chinese Whispers and title tattle ? Especially if your tree can be accessed via the internet?
That seems reasonable, but I'm sure quite a bit of family folklore is reliable, especially if there is private documentation. Your list omits other sources such as wills and newspapers, which can provide interesting sidelights on a person.
-
Sexual orientation and probably ethnicity are more sociology than genealogy. Family history includes both disciplines but sociological factors are often gossip and hearsay and belong in background notes, not necessarily to be shared like the genealogical facts.
Things are changing now but I doubt if many of our ancestors were the product of a same-sex relationship so they have little or no genealogical significance . . . future genealogy will be somewhat different, with three-parent babies, surrogacy, genetic engineering, etc.
Mike.
-
i have mentioned this briefly on another post but i will put this is more detail here. my youngest 'brother' is biologically my brother from my mother. he would be classed as a half brother he has a different father. his father is my mothers step father.
heres how it worked.
mum was made pregnant with her mothers husbands sperm (he was the 3rd husband and came into mums life when she was an adult)
she carried baby for 9 months (a surrogate) she then handed the baby to her mother and her mothers husband.
the registration of the babys birth was a tricky one. as my mother was biologically the mother she was listed as the mother. the father on the birth certificate though had to be my father as my mum was married to him. this did not please my father but at the time surrogacy was almost unheard of.
it all went to court so that parental responsibilty could be handed over to my mums mother and her husband. adoption was not an option as biologically the father just wanted parental responsibilty and needed not to adopt.
then my mums mother leaves her husband (number 3 remember! she does get through them!) and the baby grows up under her care with the biological father over 200 miles away. the boy has his biological fathers surname though.
if we are only going to record things are they are black and white in records. then unless you are lucky enough to stumble on the court records you will not see how this story works as the childs birth shows my mum and dads names as parents.
this has all been recorded in my tree, and although a lot of people find it hard to get to grips with i really couldnt care less. its facts as they are and if it offends you then dont listen/read/look.
-
.... I doubt if many of our ancestors were the product of a same-sex relationship so they have little or no genealogical significance . . . future genealogy will be somewhat different, with three-parent babies, surrogacy, genetic engineering, etc.
I didn't think humans could be 'the product of a same-sex relationship', especially historically (I'm assuming that you forgot an emoticon, Mike). Perhaps soon?
One of my great-uncles married the daughter of an 1825 marriage between a couple who had different mothers but the same father, which seems to have led to some 'feeble-minded' offspring. I was suspicious of an apparent marriage between people with the same fairly rare surname, but I found an extract on the web giving full details. I find it strange that the church carried out the marriage, but perhaps the rules do not say explicitly 'a man may not marry his father's daughter' - which is what happened.
-
... I find it strange that the church carried out the marriage, but perhaps the rules do not say explicitly 'a man may not marry his father's daughter' - which is what happened.
I'm fairly certain the rules do say that, though I haven't checked.
Sorry about the missing ;) emoticon earlier . . . I've been told I can be a little sarcastic at times . . . it's in my genes . . . family trait ::) . . . but it isn't recorded in my family tree
Mike.
-
Lots of good food for thought here (as always with Rootschatters!).
Best regards,
Josephine
-
;D ;D sorry Andrew that made me laugh, I was idly looking up the dates of a couple of family weddings I'd been a bridesmaid at, (these were people I saw fairly regularly till in my late teens).
No wonder I had trouble finding one of them, I'd completely mis-remembered the groom's name.....and I'm convinced my mother always claimed he was goalie for Chelsea FC......er no, there's no mention of him in their records. ;D
Come to think of it, now I look back he didn't really have a footballer's physique. ::)
I've been caught out a few times like that with things I'm sure I remember from childhood.
So yes, as you went on to say, it's the documentation that counts!
Interesting discussion.
Pat
-
My question about same sex issues was not provocative at all, and was not intended to be either. I merely asked the question when someone mentioned putting a note in about an ancestor being homosexual. As Guy mentioned, if an ancestor was in a relationship and you record it on your tree, then that should suffice. If they were not in a relationship, then there is still no need to record anything in my view. In years gone by, someone may have questioned your tree with two individuals of the same sex in a relationship, but I don't imagine it would get too much notice these days.
-
I found my 3rd great-grandmother and her only son on the Old Bailey website--convicted of stealing and receiving stolen goods. (84 pairs of shoes.) My great-uncle was transported to Australia. For me it was fun because some of my relatives made a big deal about Great Grandfather being descended from a rather illustrious family. Well, yes, some of them were, but times got tough for my direct line.
It happened, it was real. The family fell on hard times when they moved to London. It is all part of the true story. And I put it all on my family history website.
-
.... I doubt if many of our ancestors were the product of a same-sex relationship so they have little or no genealogical significance . . . future genealogy will be somewhat different, with three-parent babies, surrogacy, genetic engineering, etc.
I didn't think humans could be 'the product of a same-sex relationship', especially historically (I'm assuming that you forgot an emoticon, Mike). Perhaps soon?
One of my great-uncles married the daughter of an 1825 marriage between a couple who had different mothers but the same father, which seems to have led to some 'feeble-minded' offspring. I was suspicious of an apparent marriage between people with the same fairly rare surname, but I found an extract on the web giving full details. I find it strange that the church carried out the marriage, but perhaps the rules do not say explicitly 'a man may not marry his father's daughter' - which is what happened.
http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570145.html
-
.... I doubt if many of our ancestors were the product of a same-sex relationship so they have little or no genealogical significance . . . future genealogy will be somewhat different, with three-parent babies, surrogacy, genetic engineering, etc.
I didn't think humans could be 'the product of a same-sex relationship', especially historically (I'm assuming that you forgot an emoticon, Mike). Perhaps soon?
One of my great-uncles married the daughter of an 1825 marriage between a couple who had different mothers but the same father, which seems to have led to some 'feeble-minded' offspring. I was suspicious of an apparent marriage between people with the same fairly rare surname, but I found an extract on the web giving full details. I find it strange that the church carried out the marriage, but perhaps the rules do not say explicitly 'a man may not marry his father's daughter' - which is what happened.
http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570145.html
For some time a child has been able to be legally adopted by a same sex couple and there is work underway to allow for babies to be the genetic offspring of both parents from a same sex couple.
-
Sometimes I think it is better to put something like the date of death and leave it at that.
Not really necessary to go into graphic detail of how and why, nobody really wants the world to know their ancestor committed a murder as a badge of pride.
In the past often when someone committed suicide they put accidental death and then you find yourself looking for the accident, if others go on a treasure hunt, no doubt depending on the type of person they are, how they will react, some people feel tell the truth and shame the Devil, others feel the past should be left in the past and reflect quietly about it and move on.
Cheers
-
For some time a child has been able to be legally adopted by a same sex couple and there is work underway to allow for babies to be the genetic offspring of both parents from a same sex couple.
Yes, we hear bits about that, and I have to admit I find it disturbing. I am uncomfortable with what seems to me to be pandering to individuals' whims and providing challenges for boffins to see just what they can do. Having been a (chemical) researcher myself, I understand the latter urge; but having grown up at a time when accepting limitations - and delaying gratification - was part of life, I have less sympathy with the former. I might have liked to become a world-class sprinter, for example, but accepted that it wasn't going to happen. In raw terms (and some won't like this) there isn't a shortage of humans on this planet, and many countries are realising that immigration can get out of hand. There are more pressing problems than trying to help those who want children without using the normal 'channels'.
We are just getting the early complaints from women athletes who are being asked to compete on equal terms with transgender ex-males, finding that they are physically disadvantaged. They have my complete sympathy. Soon we will have a tripartite Olympics - males, females and others. ::)
In the 1930s the German Reich was condemned (among other things) for their encouragement of eugenics. Current work in genetics labs is tending in that direction.
-
Sometimes I think it is better to put something like the date of death and leave it at that.
Not really necessary to go into graphic detail of how and why, nobody really wants the world to know their ancestor committed a murder as a badge of pride.
Graphic detail -agree not necessary.
Badge of pride - definitely not
But if I am researching my Family History, ie what happened to my family in times past, then yes, if an ancestor committed a murder then that is part of the history and thus I am interested in that as a fact, and it is part of the story, so I wouldn't consider leaving it out.
-
Sometimes I think it is better to put something like the date of death and leave it at that.
Not really necessary to go into graphic detail of how and why, nobody really wants the world to know their ancestor committed a murder as a badge of pride.
Graphic detail -agree not necessary.
Badge of pride - definitely not
But if I am researching my Family History, ie what happened to my family in times past, then yes, if an ancestor committed a murder then that is part of the history and thus I am interested in that as a fact, and it is part of the story, so I wouldn't consider leaving it out.
I agree Liz. I would not see having a murderer in the family as a badge of pride. However, I do pride myself as seeking accuracy and completeness in my tree therefore I couldn't knowingly miss things out of my own records. Obviously there are lots of gaps in my tree but these are down me not knowing things.
-
Sometimes I think it is better to put something like the date of death and leave it at that.
Not really necessary to go into graphic detail of how and why, nobody really wants the world to know their ancestor committed a murder as a badge of pride.
Graphic detail -agree not necessary.
Badge of pride - definitely not
But if I am researching my Family History, ie what happened to my family in times past, then yes, if an ancestor committed a murder then that is part of the history and thus I am interested in that as a fact, and it is part of the story, so I wouldn't consider leaving it out.
I agree Liz. I would not see having a murderer in the family as a badge of pride. However, I do pride myself as seeking accuracy and completeness in my tree therefore I couldn't knowingly miss things out of my own records. Obviously there are lots of gaps in my tree but these are down me not knowing things.
I wholeheartedly agree, no one with any sort of ethics would want to glorify horrendous acts by our ancestors, but for the sake of accuracy they should be reported as factually as possible without sensationalism. They are part of our heritage and nothing can change that. Our family trees are what they are, warts and all. It's how we deal with those sometimes unpleasant things we find in our tree...............
My gaps are also gaps of knowledge not omission.
-
Hello there.
The dilemma of what to put in the family bulletins, that your genealogy research reveals.
My genealogy research odyssey started in the 1970’s when the LDS imported into New Zealand, films containing church records I was interested in, in the UK. At the same time, one of my Aunts started a mail out campaign to her cousins, asking for details of their respective families within NZ.
We were very fortunate that our handed down oral history, was relatively easily confirmed by church / parish records back to the 1790’s. It was not long before we had quite a tree, but one early NZ branch [1860’s] eluded our initial quest for family info. They were the senior pairing of two siblings, whom married two siblings, of another family. They were early NZ pioneering families sharing quite common names, and while we obtained several hundred names to add to the tree of the younger pairing, nothing was forth coming from the senior pairing, to help sort out the names obtained from our early NZ records, that were readily available at the time.
I still have a letter from the local district library, who said they had no relevant info to assist. The suggestion was, that those two braches had not spoken to each other for quite some time because of a business dispute. Then some ten years later I was contacted by a Genealogist researcher from that rural area, who was after further background info from my published research, of the UK records. It turned out this person was from our empty greater family branch, so I was soon in possession of detailed research notes, and some 250 names.
The detailed research notes, and accompanying table thereof, showed that one of the larger [number of siblings] families there on, had raised their first grandson as one of their own, his mother being quite young at the time.
I assumed this was public knowledge, as nothing in the supplied notes hinted that this issue, was a family secret.
Roll on another ten years, and I spotted a death notice with a not so common given name, that prompted me to seek out this person for more info. They were easily found in the white pages, being a civil servant, in one of our larger cities. I explained that a genealogist researcher named XYZ from their extended family had supplied family tree info, and that I was keen to know if they were related to the person in the death notice, and if they were in a position to fill me in with more detail. Or was I on the wrong track.
There followed an open, precise, and engaging discussion about this deceased person, and the civil servants extended family. And because I did not have their family spread sheet in front of me, several times in the wide ranging conversation, the person being discussed was referred to as Aunt X, or Uncle Y or as cousin, niece, nephew etc. for my benefit. I was very quickly aware that this person was NOT publicly acknowledging, that they were actually born into the next generation, but raised as a sibling of their Mother, Aunts and Uncles.
Upon hanging up the phone I was left, very thankful that I had not put my foot in it at the start of our introductory conversation, but even more so wondering how much their spouse and teenage family were aware of. By the very nature of being a civil servant, I presume, that they moved around the country for promotions, and were therefore somewhat distant from the Rural community the civil servant grew up in, where it may have been more common knowledge.
Because of this experience I prefer to research in the more distant past, and leave the issues of the now living, to future generations.
- Alan.
-
I think that's very wise Alan! And we really do need to leave them something to discover on their own, after what they will have already been "gifted" from our own research, it's much more exciting finding these things for oneself ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I think there will be quite a few stories similar to Alan's. When all is said and done, what we do can only distress the living, not the dead - and we can't be sure if any of the living will be distressed, so we usually play safe.
But things can work both ways. My father-in-law fell out with his sister when my wife was about ten years old, and as far as I know they never spoke again, even at the funeral of a parent. Ultimately the reason was money - they would take turns to house or visit their widowed father, but the sister reneged on the deal after a few years. Before the split, the families used to get together, each having two daughters of similar age.
Moving on a few decades, the estranged siblings had died and the internet had arrived. My wife uncovered the death of her aunt, and her address. After a few enquiries she made contact with her cousins and they get on like a house on fire - having lost 50 years of contact. Between them they have worked out the details of the rift without any acrimony. So keeping things hidden is not simply a matter of protecting (presumed) sensibilities.
-
My gran fell out with her cousin. When the cousin's daughter got in touch with me her mum was still alive (my gran sadly long passed) but even she, who was involved in the fall out could remember why they fell out. Mind you, she may just have been hiding something from us ;). I guess I'll never know for sure.
-
When all is said and done, what we do can only distress the living, not the dead - and we can't be sure if any of the living will be distressed, so we usually play safe.
Well said.
-
Yes, dead men (and women) tell no tales it has been said. But they do generally leave a trail for us to follow. ;)
-
Yes, dead men (and women) tell no tales it has been said ....
But traditionally, as a reason for bumping someone off :D
-
Yes, dead men (and women) tell no tales it has been said. But they do generally leave a trail for us to follow. ;)
I have this pasted on the front of my "hardcopy" file, ;) ;D
-
I love it, 3SD. ;D
-
A few years ago I was chatting by e-mail with a distant unmet cousin John about our ancestors/family trees.
John asked if I could find anything about his uncle Albert. I couldn't found anything definitive so I started checking his siblings (to see if Albert was mentioned in their death notices). I discovered that a brother X was twice gaoled for embezzlement. In the thrill of the chase I didn't think carefully and e-mailed John - Did he know about X's money problems as there are a couple of interesting articles. John replied that he didn't and would really like to know.
Only then did it occur to me that I could be chatting to X's son. I checked and X had a son John who would be in his eighties. I tried to backpedal and stall etc ... but John was insistent so in the end I sent him the articles.
He told me he was X's son and had been brought up by his father's mother as his father had died when he was quite young and his mother had walked out earlier. His grandmother had only told him about his father being an accountant and singing in the choir etc - all good things.
I felt so guilty - this was not something a man in his eighties needed to hear for the first time. John did seem to take it quite well and perhaps it explained in part why his mother had walked out.
But I try to be more careful now ...
-
I am not sure that we should presume that the elderly don't want to know the truth, or need to be protected from such events in their own family.
Some may be desperate to know, and as your case Ros, sometimes learning the truth may go some way to explaining events in the past that may not have made sense at the time; perhaps they may have been wondering about it all their lives.
Things that may have been scandalous then (illegitimacy etc) are commonplace now, and I think many older people have moved with the times and understand and would accept this in their own family history.
My father is in his 80s and I'd be happy to tell him anything and everything I found about his ancestors (if I had the chance). :)
-
I am not sure that we should presume that the elderly don't want to know the truth, or need to be protected from such events in their own family.
Some may be desperate to know, and as your case Ros, sometimes learning the truth may go some way to explaining events in the past that may not have made sense at the time; perhaps they may have been wondering about it all their lives.
In Ros's case I feel the distant cousin had relieved her of any remaining obligation to conceal the truth, by explicitly asking to hear it - especially as the story had been in the public domain for a long time, it seems. It's not really her responsibility to continue the 'protection'. One might argue that an old man need not go to his grave still wanting the 'truth' (whatever that may be).
-
I am not sure that we should presume that the elderly don't want to know the truth, or need to be protected from such events in their own family.
Some may be desperate to know, and as your case Ros, sometimes learning the truth may go some way to explaining events in the past that may not have made sense at the time; perhaps they may have been wondering about it all their lives.
In Ros's case I feel the distant cousin had relieved her of any remaining obligation to conceal the truth, by explicitly asking to hear it - especially as the story had been in the public domain for a long time, it seems. It's not really her responsibility to continue the 'protection'. One might argue that an old man need not go to his grave still wanting the 'truth' (whatever that may be).
I agree Andrew. He specifically asked to hear it. Ros should feel no guilt.
-
Agreed, if the information is specifically requested then you should feel no guilt at passing it on.
I am sure if my mum and dad were still here, they would want to know what I have discovered in my diggings into the family past..........
-
Thank you for trying to alleviate my guilt. :)
But John would not have had an inkling that his father was not the paragon of virtue that his grandmother had led him to believe (and he had believed for 80 years) if I had not stumbled upon the articles and unwittingly blurted it out.
It must have been a shock to John and he must have reviewed, relived, questioned all he knew about his early life and his grandmother's stories and views etc. Definitely not easy for a man in his eighties to have to go through.
-
But John would not have had an inkling that his father was not the paragon of virtue that his grandmother had led him to believe (and he had believed for 80 years) if I had not stumbled upon the articles and unwittingly blurted it out.
It must have been a shock to John and he must have reviewed, relived, questioned all he knew about his early life and his grandmother's stories and views etc. Definitely not easy for a man in his eighties to have to go through.
One of the lessons of life is that you can never be certain of what goes on in other people's lives, however well you may think you know them. That's not to say that there is a skeleton in every cupboard, just that one only ever sees the outside, as it were. By the same token you can never be sure how someone will receive any 'news' you may have. You may guess wrong - but that's not to say you should always tell them nothing.