Author Topic: Ethics or genetics?  (Read 294 times)

Online coombs

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,109
  • Research the dead....forget the living.
    • View Profile
Ethics or genetics?
« on: Monday 31 August 20 22:51 BST (UK) »
I did start a thread a few years ago about infidelity in our ancestors days, and how there is a 2% chance of a non paternal event in your tree, and several replies were that women were more conservative back then and I agree, also they did not drive like we do and they were busy bringing children up a lot, and everyone knew everyone's business.

But if you were to find a non paternal event in your tree, would you dismiss that male as an ancestor, or would you still see them as an ancestor, seeing as they bought your subsequent ancestor up, gave them their surname, and shaped them and subsequent descendants. I think most of us, including me would go for the latter. Someone once said to me in a discussion years ago "If they bought them up and nurtured them, and disciplined them when need be, does it matter if they were the blood father?".
Researching:

LONDON, Coombs, Roberts, Auber, Helsdon, Fradine, Morin, Goodacre
DORSET Coombs, Munday
NORFOLK Helsdon, Riches, Harbord, Budery
KENT Roberts, Goodacre
SUSSEX Walder, Boniface, Dinnage, Standen, Lee, Botten, Wickham, Jupp
SUFFOLK Titshall, Frost, Fairweather, Mayhew, Archer, Eade, Scarfe
DURHAM Stewart, Musgrave, Wilson, Forster
SCOTLAND Stewart in Selkirk
USA Musgrave, Saix
ESSEX Cornwell, Stock, Quilter, Lawrence, Whale, Clift
OXON Edgington, Smith, Inkpen, Snell, Batten, Brain

Offline Stanwix England

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 500
  • Beginner on the climb up my family tree
    • View Profile
Re: Ethics or genetics?
« Reply #1 on: Monday 31 August 20 22:55 BST (UK) »
That's a very interesting question.

I think I'd probably see them as an ancestor of sorts.

Now I'm, finally, writing up the family history I've been doing a lot of background research into what was going on in the world around the people I'm writing about. I consider them to be shaped by their environment, so it wouldn't be correct for me to just dismiss the people they lived with as an influence, even if they were not their biological parents.
Primary interest - The Wheldale Family - Globally

Online coombs

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,109
  • Research the dead....forget the living.
    • View Profile
Re: Ethics or genetics?
« Reply #2 on: Monday 31 August 20 23:13 BST (UK) »
In soap opera Emmerdale, Lawrence White told his daughter Chrissie "You are my daughter in every way but biology" when she was told he was not her biological father. I am sure that applies to any real life situations in parents or further back such as ancestors. "Ancestors in every way but biology"
Researching:

LONDON, Coombs, Roberts, Auber, Helsdon, Fradine, Morin, Goodacre
DORSET Coombs, Munday
NORFOLK Helsdon, Riches, Harbord, Budery
KENT Roberts, Goodacre
SUSSEX Walder, Boniface, Dinnage, Standen, Lee, Botten, Wickham, Jupp
SUFFOLK Titshall, Frost, Fairweather, Mayhew, Archer, Eade, Scarfe
DURHAM Stewart, Musgrave, Wilson, Forster
SCOTLAND Stewart in Selkirk
USA Musgrave, Saix
ESSEX Cornwell, Stock, Quilter, Lawrence, Whale, Clift
OXON Edgington, Smith, Inkpen, Snell, Batten, Brain


Online Kiltpin

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 648
  • Stand and be Counted
    • View Profile
Re: Ethics or genetics?
« Reply #3 on: Tuesday 01 September 20 00:03 BST (UK) »
Nature or Nurture? An old question that has been debated back and forth for hundreds of years. I side with nurture.   

We had an occurrence in the village some 20+ years ago. A husband and wife could not conceive and not for want of trying. The wife has a short, but eventful affair and falls pregnant. A baby boy is born and for the next 14 years all is bliss. The boy was everything that a parent could want in a child and husband and wife were rightfully proud of him. The "father" (unmarried with no known children) was jealous. It came to a head at that year's village fete.

All the main players were there, plus the 2 village gossips, when the "father" announced that he was the father and the boy was his son. SCANDAL was about to happen. (Unbeknownst to everyone the husband, wife and son had discussed the situation some years before.)  There was silence for a moment, that felt like an hour. The boy walked to the husband and said "You're my Dad - He's just a sperm donor. Lets go home."   

I am very pleased to say that everybody (apart from the "father") lived happily ever after.   

Yes, I am very firmly on the side of nurture. 

Regards 

Chas


Whannell - Eaton - Jackson
India - Scotland - Australia

Offline Guy Etchells

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,158
    • View Profile
Re: Ethics or genetics?
« Reply #4 on: Tuesday 01 September 20 06:03 BST (UK) »
I did start a thread a few years ago about infidelity in our ancestors days, and how there is a 2% chance of a non paternal event in your tree, and several replies were that women were more conservative back then and I agree, also they did not drive like we do and they were busy bringing children up a lot, and everyone knew everyone's business.

But if you were to find a non paternal event in your tree, would you dismiss that male as an ancestor, or would you still see them as an ancestor, seeing as they bought your subsequent ancestor up, gave them their surname, and shaped them and subsequent descendants. I think most of us, including me would go for the latter. Someone once said to me in a discussion years ago "If they bought them up and nurtured them, and disciplined them when need be, does it matter if they were the blood father?".

That all depends on whether you want to tag the people on you tree or you add anyone and everyone who was a major influence in your family's life.
I suppose it boils down to the difference between genealogy and family history!
Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

Offline a chesters

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,053
    • View Profile
Re: Ethics or genetics?
« Reply #5 on: Tuesday 01 September 20 06:25 BST (UK) »
Nature or Nurture? An old question that has been debated back and forth for hundreds of years. I side with nurture.   

We had an occurrence in the village some 20+ years ago. A husband and wife could not conceive and not for want of trying. The wife has a short, but eventful affair and falls pregnant. A baby boy is born and for the next 14 years all is bliss. The boy was everything that a parent could want in a child and husband and wife were rightfully proud of him. The "father" (unmarried with no known children) was jealous. It came to a head at that year's village fete.

All the main players were there, plus the 2 village gossips, when the "father" announced that he was the father and the boy was his son. SCANDAL was about to happen. (Unbeknownst to everyone the husband, wife and son had discussed the situation some years before.)  There was silence for a moment, that felt like an hour. The boy walked to the husband and said "You're my Dad - He's just a sperm donor. Lets go home."   

I am very pleased to say that everybody (apart from the "father") lived happily ever after.   

Yes, I am very firmly on the side of nurture. 

Regards 

Chas




That is the best possible put down I have ever heard. More power to the son as he goes through life.

AC