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
