People who cannot accept truth in skeletons.

[benny1982]

Hi

Have any of you ever had people who cannot accept skeletons in family history at all? Ie, even if you have the most conclusive proof, ie a suicide inquest or death cert, affair scandal, murder, prisoner ancestor on a census, relatives and even other people cannot accept such truth and will make up anything to argue it. They come up with ridiculous refuting theories that are so illogical. They say "No it wasnt suicide, it was an accidnet" even with the newspaper reports in front to them. It has always been known for men to stray from their wives when they were dying or not even and some people say that certain illnesses increases sexual drive and cannot be used as an excuse to stray. People strayed from their wives especially if they were really ill. Terminal illnesses do NOT increase sexual drive. The sufferer would have felt like a zombie, be ridden with germs and feel very, very fatigued.

If you have an ancestor in prison for a crime which he was found guilty of someone will refute it by saying that they were stitched up or it is all lies.

I think certain peple cannot accept skeletons in family history and will argue even the most conclusive proof.

Ben

[dawn/karen]

oh yes benny i have that to look forward to presenting my evidence to my mother, she always told of a great grand dad coming from denmark and having to leave due to killing the kings deer, well since then i have found out so many thing about the family its laughable at!! oh and the man that we are talking about here came from kent, i didnt realise the king of denmark came from there too!!!

i have found out that my mums mum told lies to get married, had a baby that my mum doesnt have a clue exsisted, that my dads mum was up the duff before they got married, and although none of the latter isnt that shocking to us, to my mum and dad "being of higher morals" than the rest of us this is absolutely the sort of thing you disown people for!!! they did it to me, so hence why im looking forward to that day when i present this info, oh the man in kent got sent to the nick for 5 yrs and ordered to pay the equivalent of 2 1/2 yrs pay back then in 1850, i mean someone in her family going prison unheard of, i must have made a mistake as it cant possibly be her family now could it, i feel a touch of H Boquets here!!

[Jane Gee]

I think that a sense of humour is needed sometimes, my Dad bless him couldnt accept his grandmother was pregnant when she married and had his Dad having discussed it once with him I decided not to mention it again only if i wanted to wide him up but did it in a very kind fashion.

[mary elms]

Sometimes we have to remember that this is our hobby and not theirs. If they asked us to find out then that's one thing (and very frustrating as I know from experience) but sometimes we get so excited that we start pushing information at people who didn't ask for it and don't want it ... and we're upset or annoyed when they reject it.

My father was quite clear about what he wanted me to look into and what he didn't want me to look into and it would have been quite wrong of me to tell him about anything in the latter area even if it was really interesting.

Mary.

[Jane Gee]

I agree I would not hurt anybodies feelings over our hobby, on the other hand we sometimes get told things that we dont like to hear. my aunt once told me that my grandfather had hit my grandmother it upset me as my mom always spoke with great respect and affection for her parents. When I asked my mom about it she said not to worry and to take no notice of it she had never heard of it herself. Bless my aunt she did like to gossip

[benny1982]

Hi

Even fellow genealogists cant accept truth. Tough luck for them. Things happened that others dont like. My gggran was the result of an affair her parents were having when his wife was dying of a nasty illness in 1863. Luckily for the mother his wife died just before the babys birth so she could be with the father. That is the truth and it is totally watertight and unsinkable but some people cannot accept things like that even with all the proof given and they contradict it and it can really be annoying.

Skeletons in the cupboard can solve mysteries and brickwalls.

Ben

[v.wells]

Skeletons can be fun to rattle once in a while too :D

[benny1982]

Hi

Yes they can. I am sure that we all have a black sheep or scandal in our family trees.

Ben

[Ladkyis]

I want a black sheep, I would love a black sheep. One with a criminal record so I can have a physical description of them please. I have a few grubby gray sheep but not one single black one. The best I can do is a murder victim.
My husband has illegitimate children popping up in every generation but my lot - oh there is a Jewish girl marying a Roman Catholic and she was an actress - see just a bit gray.

[Tom Harrison]

Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that

Hillary Clinton's great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, was hanged for

horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889.



The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows.

On the back of the picture is this inscription: 'Remus Rodham; horse

thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1883, escaped 1887, robbed

the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives,

convicted, and hanged in 1889.'



Judy e-mailed Hillary Clinton for comments. Hillary's staff sent back

the following biographical sketch:



'Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His

business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian

assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in

1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government

facility, finally taking leave in 1887 to resume his dealings with the

railroad. Subsequently, he was a key player in a vital investigation

run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed

away during an important civic function held in his honor, when the

platform on which he was standing collapsed.'

Tom

[susan-y]

'Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory . His

business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian

assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in

1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government

facility, finally taking leave in 1887 to resume his dealings with the

railroad. Subsequently, he was a key player in a vital investigation

run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed

away during an important civic function held in his honor, when the

platform on which he was standing collapsed.'

Tom


|jumphappy

Proof for you , Ben... some people just will not admit the obvious!!

Sue

[Penny Gallo]

Well, if that ain't the best darned piece of spin I ever did hear..... That's what makes a politician!

I haven't had problems regaling family with the skeletons I've found. The biggest problem were elderly relatives, very mentally alert, who hinted at revelations - "I could tell you a thing or two about that, Penny!" in quavery handwriting - then never did. I think they justified this by morality but hinting just gave them so much pleasure. Ah well, I've managed to knock one brick wall down - and am keeping going with the others.

[benny1982]

For example if a single unmarried woman fell pregnant to a baby and wed shortly after the birth and the new hubby claimed fatherhood in the subsequent baptism and you find that he was still married well into the mums pregnancy and the previous wife had been ill for a long time before she died, its obvious he was that babys father. The length of his wifes illness would prove that, giving him opportunities to play the field. Arthur Conan Doyle strayed while his wife was dying, my ancestor did, it is a well known fact. It happened.

Ben

[Aislin]

I haven't found any serious black sheep (yet) in my tree, but I think my ancestors hold the world's record for shortest pregnancies ever.

[Peter_uk_can]

In the course of researching it is highly possible that one will uncover "skeletons", as described here. However I don't think that it is my job as an "hobby genealogist" to force this or for that matter, any information upon those who do not wish to either receive it or hear it.

After all, as I wasn't present at these events and I do not have first hand information as to the true circumstances surrounding them.

Not everyone in the families I am researching is interested in the history, some don't see why we should go digging things up and they have a point which is as equally valid as my own.

A little bit like speaking to someone on the telephone, I am sure that we all conjour up an image of this person and very often will find that when meeting them, they bear little resemblance to the character in our heads.

I believe that the amateur/hobby genealogy is providing a valuable service to history. It has pressured archives and governement institutions to be more transparent in the way they hold the history of our ancestors.

Our work is generally the best we can do, at the time, with what we have and how we interpret it, I don't however believe that it is the be all and end all of our history. The history that I have researched remains open to criticism, corrections and opinion. Even if I don't agree, I do believe that a good researcher will always listen.

..

[Jane Gee]

I was thrilled to find a relative of mine in Horsemonger goal for debt. Definitely gives a bit of interest and edge to research.

[helena869]

I love skeletons.

My family have none so far (except the paedophile but everyone knew about that so I don't think it counts). However, I started doing my husband's side of the family and they have all sorts of dodgy things going on - it's great!!

Not sure how his very stuffy aunt would react though! :D

[Penny Gallo]

"Not sure how his very stuffy aunt would react though! "

I think it's trickier with someone else's family. I'm rather glad it would be hard for me to investigate my partner's family much further back than the 1911 Dublin census. I'd be worried I'd find some glaring evidence of English mistreatment. The past can be a tricky hunting-ground.

[daleaway]

Don't be taken in by that Hillary Clinton story - it's typical of the vicious slander her political rivals have circulated about her from the outset.

Check it out on Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/thief.asp

[benny1982]

Often the facts are there in black and white. The success of a genealogy breakthrough can have its tragic side and that is something that you will have to accept.

[Jane Gee]

I have a relative that appears to have been murdered by aboriginies in Australia I would like to try to find out which tribe they belonged to because I feel that there may have been a good reasonfor the murder. I have been told that the botany expedition he was with may have violated some sacred ground or animal. However I know this could still be a very sensative subject which means I will have to be very careful.

Jane

[benny1982]

Hi

That sounds interesting Jane. I think with some people pride can get in the way of family skeletons in the cupboards that can fall out once you open the door.

The origin of that saying "Skeleton in the cupboard" is quite obvious. Murder victims originally and the term was then probably used for other dark secrets in the families like thefts, suicides, etc.

Ben

[Izzycat]

I think skeletons can make research interesting & make sense of some family stories & behaviours; BUT I also recognise that not everyone will want to know about it & that it can cause distress to some.
My favourite skeleton is my gt grandmother - my grandmother was adopted at age 2 & many false stories were told by her adoptive parents to protect her from knowing the truth about her parentage. It turns out that her mum may have been selling her affections on the streets of Cardiff; either that or she was a very enthusiastic amateur. Sadly, it appears that she was probably suffering from a mental illness & she died as a homeless person. I find her story fascinating but have not made this info available to all my family as I am aware that it would cause great distress.

We cannot change the past, but I think we have a duty of care to those members of our families who would be upset by the facts we unearth, not to inform them. They have a right to remain ignorant just as we have a right to know.
Izzy

[Jane Gee]

Hi Benny
I should have said is definite that he was murdered just trying to find the murder trial at Sydney but no luck in newspapers after 14.4.1855 australian newspapers beta so will wait for Sydney morning herald. Have lots of other bits and pieces but only found this out by tracing living relatives who knew the story and had details of a memorial stone in Gillingham Kent (long since gone) he was a brother of my gt grandfather but the information was never passed down to our side of the family.
It can pay dividends sometimes if you can trace 2 and 3 cousins removed I have been very lucky as one of them has now died and he was my original contact and what he knew was absoutely fabulous.

Best Wishes
Jane

[Sandra Parker]

Hi Jane,
Have you tried the following?
Australian National Archives http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/recordsearch/index.aspx
NSW Archives http://www.records.nsw.gov.au (http://www.records.nsw.gov.au)
State Library of NSW - http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au (http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au)
National Library of Australia - http://www.nla.gov.au/home.html (http://www.nla.gov.au/home.html)
Australian Historical Association - http://www.theaha.org.au (http://www.theaha.org.au)
Australian Council of Professional Historians Associations - http://www.historians.org.au (http://www.historians.org.au/)
Unfortunately, many hundreds of Aboriginal people were killed over the years, often in killing expeditions set up for the purpose, to punish any group that happened to be in the area and were supposed to have been involved in some anti settlement activity. Sometimes they were, but not always. The attitude of some of the law makers, police, soldiers, settlers and developers left a lot to be desired and many innocent people were subject to 'punitive expeditions'!
Whole groups were often killed including women and children. There are still many aboriginal people only one generation away from the last of these massacres in the Northern Territory. The skeletal remains of almost an entire clan group from one of the last NT massacres, are still in caves not far from Wave Hill. A few non aboriginal men have been to taken this site in recent times, by the descendants.
So it isn't that surprising to find that on occasions, they had had enough of being 'imposed upon' and retaliated. Again they had also had no way of knowing that they had identified the person/s they were holding responsible.
Many of these stories are well documented.
If you have your relative's name and the date and area, then someone at one of these sites, should be able to set you in the right direction to find a record of such an event.
I'm sure you will find the accounts most interesting.
Sandra

[Jane Gee]

Hi Sandra
I really appreciate your reply I am under no illusion that the reason Frederick Strange the botanist Henry Gittings(my ancestor) and others were killed for no good reason at all. I have been in touch with the Forbes society and have read various papers relating to the Percy Islands the newspaper articles are very one sided (I feel) and this is why I would like to find out more about the natives/aboriginies who were on the Percy Islands. I know they were taken after being captured by people on board HM Torch the ships log is very factual and to the point ie landed on island looked for natives found them and took them to Moreton Bay.
My problem with the newspapers of the time are that in one they said there was no interpreter but they could quite clearly tell that the natives were saying killed man and described (sign language) what they had done with them.
I want a fair account of what happended so this can be passed down to my family
I will be checking out all the things you have sent.
Best Wishes
Jane

[benny1982]

Hi

very often couples or someone fled the area after a skeleton in the closet. They did it escape a scandal, debtors, an irate person etc.

My 3xgreat grandparents ran away after the birth of their first child due to it being illegitimate but as said they wed within a few months after settling in London. They did that to also protect the baby for obvious reasons. One the illegitimacy and two the fact her dad was still married when the mum was pregnant.

Many people fled their residences to live with relatives far away in order to escape scandals etc.

Ben

[Jane Gee]

My hubands grandparents did moonlight flits due to debt but when they had retail shop of their own and made some money they seemed to forget about this when their son married a working class girl. They looked down on her.
My aunt was a labour member (fully paid up)all of her life but when she had a business of her own she seemed to change her allegiance I do find people can be quite funny at times.:)

[benny1982]

Hi

Oh yes in later life the Roberts ran a beer house in Walworth in 1878. Thomas was the beer retailer and he appears on a March 1878 rate payers book. They gave it up in September 1878 and were in Holborn by November when they applied for poor relief. I wonder if they had debts and moved to another part of the capital to escape another scandal which was the reason why they moved to London in the first place 15 years earlier.

Ben

[beachbaby]

Had a great grandfather who left Manchester England in a hurry after he thought he killed a man in the iron foundry where he worked. He had some sort of argument with the man and hit him with a hammer. The other man lived, but gramps ended up in Boston. My mother was mortified when we told her about this and refused to believe it. I figured, well, it's up to her whether she wants to or not, but I didn't bother telling her anything scandelous (interesting) after that.

What was the use?

Teri

[kermie62]

I went to an excellent talk given by the producer of the Australian version of the show "Who do you think you are". She told us that before they start they ask people what they do and dont want to know about and they often find things they dont tell people about because they dont want to know about it. They have in fact had shows they have spent 6 monthds preparing and then the person decides they dont want to go ahead because of what is discovered. She saifd they had yet to find a family that did not have sone dark skeleton.

I would say that every person has the right to thier own delusions or faith as long as they dont inflict them on other parties, our researches gives us a degree of power through knowledge and we have to respect this power and not abuse it, there is a great deal of trust and good faith in our cooperation with each other in family history. I have a personal dilema in that my mother gave me up when I was born and is very determined that I am not part of the family. Given that she also is researching the family, that creates a clash between her right to privacy about her past and my right to know my roots and my ancestors and we seek inforrmation from other researchers.

However I also find with respect to the older generation, they are more aware of things and the realities of human nature than we give them credit for. My case although carfeflully hidden, was well known to all the family and I discovered that one of my ancestors who was married was discharged from the army in the Second World War for VD he collected overseas, I wondered wether or how I was going to tell his elderly daughter but she just accepted it with a shriug saying, "welll we all knew he was one for the ladies"

[Ladkyis]

The only difference is that before you become aware of what happened you don't know about it and after you learn about it you know. The thing still happened so if you can't face knowing you had better stop researching right now because whatever is your worst nightmare will be there in your family tree sure as eggs is eggs.

[Tony]

What I have sometimes said is, if your father was hanged for sheep-stealing you might want to keep it under your hat. But if an ancestor several generations back committed such a crime, or any other crime, or did anything disreputable whose details linger on in some record, be glad of it to liven up your family history.
The worse thing for a genealogists is have to accept generation upon generation of law-abiding ag-lab ancestors whose only impact on the written record were the occasions of their birth, marriage and death, who never had a run-in with the law, never engaged in any land or property deals, never went to war, were never outspoken about anything, and basically melted into the landscape.
Just my opinion, of course.

! ! ! H A P P Y . . . C H R I S T M A S . . . E V E R Y O N E ! ! !

[Jan1954]

The worse thing for a genealogists is have to accept generation upon generation of law-abiding ag-lab ancestors whose only impact on the written record were the occasions of their birth, marriage and death, who never had a run-in with the law, never engaged in any land or property deals, never went to war, were never outspoken about anything, and basically melted into the landscape.Have you been looking at my tree? ;)

Okay, one of my Ag Labs went to prison for 2 weeks for "threatening Farmer Hagger with a hayfork" and his name was John Smith!

[benny1982]

Hi

An ancestor of mine was in jail in the 1871 census. An elderly relative said he was in there for poaching.

Ben

[Tony]

Farmer Hagger was a mean old bugger - John should have stuck him.
Benny - yes, the law can be pretty intransigent, even when you are just trying to put food on the table.
There were many Quakers in my family. One of my ROSE line was indicted for physically ejecting the tithe-collector from his house - basically refusing to support a rival religion that was down on Quakers. Sound logic if you ask me, even if a little un-Quakerish. But good for him I say.

[JohnN]

What I have sometimes said is, if your father was hanged for sheep-stealing you might want to keep it under your hat. But if an ancestor several generations back committed such a crime, or any other crime, or did anything disreputable whose details linger on in some record, be glad of it to liven up your family history.




I think you've hit it on the head, Tony.

I was intrigued to discover that my Hampshire gggrandmother produced a string of bastards and was described in the 1881 Census as 'Needlewoman', yet when a discussion on another thread came up with the comment (together with a few nudges and winks) that 'Laundress' was another polite way of describing a lady of immoral habits, I surprised myself by feeling quite indignant: my Nan and her mother (in Hammersmith) were listed in 1901 as 'Laundress' and 'Washergirl' respectively and there was no way in the world that I could accept that they might have been up to no good! |shakehead

It must depend upon how close to home the people in question are.
:o

[Tony]

John, you could look at it this way, it's more commendable to be friendly to strangers, than to be nasty to them. I'd take the friendly sort any day of the week, even if they want a little something in return - especially if I'm far from home and nobody knows me . . .

[kermie62]

The only difference is that before you become aware of what happened you don't know about it and after you learn about it you know. The thing still happened so if you can't face knowing you had better stop researching right now because whatever is your worst nightmare will be there in your family tree sure as eggs is eggs.


I agree with this but would also state that it is us who choose to follow the family history but that we should not impose that wish upon others who do not choose. Find our secrets but only release them who want them.

The opposite can also be true, my great grandfather is remembered by the family as an old drunk who was thrown out by his third wife who raised the my grandmotehr her stepdaughter. I found his service record that shows reports from supervisors of him as a teacher of only moderate skills but dedicated and motivated for the children. He was then sent to a reomte area where he lost his baby son, was transfered away to another area where his wife died after a long illness leavig him with a 9 month old baby girl. After this point his service record shows him going down hill and being reprimanded for over discipling the children (in 1909!!!) and over drinking, swearing and also marrying the stepdmother within 3 months of his wifes death. He was allowed to resing within 12 months after the death of my G grandmother. None of this was know to the family but now it is possible to be more charitable to him

I started my family history to see if I could find someone exceptional in the family, my quest is now to find someone normal. So far I have found

1) A french sailor who jumped ship in the gold rush
2) A upper class irish magisntrate transported for perjury
3) an irish agricultuiral servent transported for stealign a turkey who then got an extra six months for stealing meat and potatoes while in goal
4) An irish woman transported for stealing cotton
5) A gloucestershire man transported for stealing a horse or a house (bad handwriting.
6)a soldgier transported from NW to VDL for steasling rum frm the goverment store
7) A bloke from somerset who went to ireland, fought in the english civil war, lopped off irish cathlic heads and robbed a widow of her lands and fortune

and so it goes on

GHow was I suppose to a hope

[JohnN]

...it's more commendable to be friendly to strangers, than to be nasty to them. I'd take the friendly sort any day of the week, even if they want a little something in return - especially if I'm far from home and nobody knows me . . .

Couldn't agree more, Tony!

:)

[raineshoe]

I am now very careful what information I release to relatives and what I keep private. I have met so many other family historians through our tree that have had relatives say "I want to know everything" then when told everything they are disowned by the family, sent to Coventry or whatever.

So, now when someone says I want to know everything I sometimes keep things to myself for a quiet life and let them carry on believing that they've always thought. If they are that way inclined I don't want to shatter their illusion and sometimes they are what I would consider too old to be told any different ie a grandma that was 95+ when I found out an interesting but nevertheless probably upsetting fact for her about her father.

Also, a current situation which is very important that I don't let out is that I currently am aware of an adopted child (don't know where that child is now though) in our family tree and the other children of that particular woman know nothing about that child.

So, I judge each situation on its own merit and each individual on their own merit as to what I impart and what I keep to myself :D

[Jane Gee]

I am in the same position but will not be mentioning this adoption ever. I am lucky that the relative concerned who had the child adopted does not live in this country having left for abroad in the 1950s I would be terrified of her finding out that I know, if she ever found out and was hurt by it I think my mum would come back to haunt me! The relative who had a child adopted had had enough in her life to cope with which made her deeply unhappy and I dont want to add to it.

[raineshoe]

Yep, its a really difficult one, cos like you say if someone finds out you knew and didn't tell them you get strung up too. Not only that ours are very close only down the road which makes it harder.

The only ones that know are myself and my partner and we will keep it that way. If it ever comes out I shall just be all surprised and say I didn't know :)

[scottswahhay]

I think im about to find quite a few in my cupboards lol

[muppet]

I have so many black sheep and they cause so many brickwalls that it has taken me 5yrs just to get back to 1880 fathers side and 1890 on mothers. You have to do so much double checking to ensure you don't adopt the wrong person! I personally find it really interesting considering the values that our families tried to instill in us-"Don't do as I do, do as I say".

I have, single births, before marriage, after marriage to other men
Bigamy, poss incest, thievery and the list goes on, at least life was never dull for them!

[Spangle]

We have the same - my Stepfather's Uncle was a bigamist, so my Mum tells me, but Stepdad won't talk about it. We also have a suicide in living memory and that too is a no-go area.

[beachbaby]

Mom used to refer to my great grandfather as "that bas***d, Richard" but would never explain. Now it's come to light - desertion of his first wife and flight to the US after attempted murder. Very interesting, that's for sure!

Teri |wave|

[muppet]

Most of mine were 1880 - 1920 ish, I think the scruples set in about 1930 and illegitimacy became a bad word, as peoples income and expectations improved so their attitude to to anything iffy declined almost to snobishness. If anything should happen in their family it was swept under the carpet and everyone pretended it didn't happen.

I think that a lot of earlier illegitimacy and the like were not only that ordinary working people couldn't afford divorce they probably couldn't afford to marry in the first place! What a shame our ancestors didn't know that we would be far more liberal and understanding today so they didn't feel the need to hide everything.

[fideliab]

I live in the Hammersmith area and was interested to find out that is was famous for its laundries in 19c. It was the place where all London's dirty washing was brought. There was a bleaching works here I believe. So I am sure it is entirely possible that your nan was a bona fide laundress! Even now a couple of big laundries are based here.

[benny1982]

I think we will all find skeletons in our family trees. It is a fact of life. Everyone will have an immoral ancestor.

[hepzibah]

i would just like to have found one ancestor who lived up to the family stories which i was told!! instead, they have turned out to be ordinary, or must have lived double lives!!!

[benny1982]

I have an ancestor who had two daughters who gave birth to illegitimate children and one of them was also a thief.

[raineshoe]

I think people always want to see the good side and not the bad side. As I said on a previous thread after a distant relative's aunt said she wanted to know everything and was told everything and then didn't ever speak to the distant relative again I am very selective what I tell relatives now. For example a 93 year old grandma always thought her grandfather was found on a doorstep. In fact he was the offspring of two servants who never married and the mother was aloud to put the baby into the Foundling Hospital provided she provide a reference saying she was of previous good character. The baby was placed in the Hospital and grew up in their care. I decided at 93 it was best left alone and let her continue to think he was found on a doorstep. I also know something about the current family ties that only one other in the family knows (and she doesn't know I know) and I'm not disclosing to anyone as that would be like an atomic bomb being let off and the fall out would be horrendous. Again best left alone. If it comes out and it won't be through me I'll just let them think I didn't know.

Ultimately, people only read what they want to see on paper and only hear what they want to hear and will twist it to fit what they want. I just think everyone when doing their family trees should be careful what they disclose to relatives as often they don't want to think they've been "naughty".

[Durham Lady]

It can be interesting trying to sort out fact from fiction in family stories. Many years ago a paternal aunt told me one of her uncles was put in the electric chair in the US for murdering his wife. Later and uncle said "no" it was in Canada and he was hanged. Forward several years and I now have all the newspaper reports, trial reports and death certificates to prove my great uncle was hanged in Canada in 1911 for murdering his wife.
A story told by my mum was one of her uncles died from war wounds a few years after ww1. Mmmm when i received his death certificate he had died from syphilis. I suppose he did catch it when he was away from home during the war but war wounds? :oops:

[Zen Rabbit]

My great grandfather was either a fantastic gentle man or a gambling scoundrel depending on whom I ask. Needless to say the scoundrel bit comes from the son who was illegitimate.

[benny1982]

I do admit I will not exactly be thrilled to be descended from an ancestor who was a scoundrel. OK I may not be here today if not for him but even so, some people stick up for bad uns in ancestors but it can be off putting if you do have an ancestor who was a scoundrel.

[Geoffers]

I look at it this way..........it's a bit late to change things.

In carrying out research I am asking questions to try and find answers.

If I don't like the answers, I shouldn't have asked the questions.

But I accept that other family members may not be interested, or want to know of the scoundrels in our family history - so I don't bore them with my obsession..................er, sorry................passing interest in history.

[benny1982]

I love asking questions in genealogy. That is what it is for but I dont always like the answers. That is one of the pitfalls of genealogy.

Ie I cannot find a baptism on an ancestor born about 1820 and in research for it I am asking questions but there is a possible answer I dont like is he may not have been baptised. But at least I know who his parents were.

[Zen Rabbit]

The only answers I don't like are the ones that mean you discover your great grandfather was adopted with scant records of real parents while your records for adopted parents go back to 1401. Thus wiping out years of research in one fell swoop! :)

[AnjaliUK]

The only answers I don't like are the ones that mean you discover your great grandfather was adopted with scant records of real parents while your records for adopted parents go back to 1401. Thus wiping out years of research in one fell swoop! :)

Oh no, did that happen?? That sucks! I feel a sudden need to get all my 20th century birth certificates.

I don't see the point in telling people unpleasant histories about people they knew and cared about. What could possibly be the benefit of it? However, I don't understand why anyone would be embarrassed or offended about relatives they never met. We are only responsible for our own behaviour and can't do a thing about where we came from. I think it was Julian Clary's mum on Who Do You Think You Are? who was terribly embarrassed to discover that she had foreigners in her ancestry?? Strange attitude.

[benny1982]

I like having French and Scottish ancestors. When I say I have French ancestors people say "We all do if we go back far enough" assuming I mean Normans but I have ancestors who came over from France a lot later who were the Huguenots and one direct rellie came to England in 1750 from Poitou. My aunty says the Scottish blood is well worn off. I dont think so. We still have Scots blood no matter how far back it is. Although I have never tried haggis lol.

I dont want to have a complete tree of known ancestors who were all English. And I have a direct rellie who emigrated in 1886. Whilst he was English he died 4000 miles away.

[Zen Rabbit]

Oh no, did that happen?? That sucks! I feel a sudden need to get all my 20th century birth certificates.



No not yet. but I am having problems finding a birth certificate from 1839 for one of my great, great grandfathers whom I had assumed was the son of the people he is on the 1841 census with.

[AnjaliUK]

No not yet. but I am having problems finding a birth certificate from 1839 for one of my great, great grandfathers whom I had assumed was the son of the people he is on the 1841 census with.

Ahhhh, I see. Well if they're together and have the same surname, chances are they will be related, so hopefully it won't be too far wrong. In one of my 1841 census records there was my direct ancestor, her father, and then the rest of the children in the record were her cousins who'd been orphaned and taken in. The fathers were brothers and the mothers were sisters so either way the research would've worked :)

[pottoka]

I like having French and Scottish ancestors. When I say I have French ancestors people say "We all do if we go back far enough" assuming I mean Normans

The answer to that, Benny, is that they don't know what they're talking about, because the Normans weren't French! They were Vikings: "normand" (French) comes from nortman, meaning "man from the North".

They raided the coasts of France just like they did those of England, and further afield, and, finally, the French (it wasn't France, then) king, Charles le Simple, signed a treaty with a top Viking chappie called Rollo in 911, giving him the territory which is now Normandy in return for Rollo being a vassal of the king and, more importantly, keeping other Vikings away.

So from then on, the Vikings settled into what became known as Normandy and made themselves at home. They presumably mixed with the indigenous population, but basically they were Scandinavian. Not French!


My aunty says the Scottish blood is well worn off. I dont think so. We still have Scots blood no matter how far back it is. Although I have never tried haggis lol.

Hardly worn off, but maybe a bit diluted. http://freesmileyface.net/smiley/happy/happy-067.gif (http://freesmileyface.net/free-happy-smileys.html) You really should try haggis; not only is it delicious but it might make you think about which tartan to have your kilt made from.


I dont want to have a complete tree of known ancestors who were all English.

Is there something wrong with being pure-bred English? http://planetsmilies.net/flag-smiley-7324.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

[Waitabit]

Originally Posted by benny1982
I dont want to have a complete tree of known ancestors who were all English.


Is there something wrong with being pure-bred English? Pottoka

How many of those are there in England? Also how easy to prove? I'd be content to be able to do so with my lot, but with the names given to them (& thousands of others) :) I can't see it happening.
So far the Lancashire lot are the most trying, no, difficult without even trying. :(

[AnjaliUK]

Is there something wrong with being pure-bred English? http://planetsmilies.net/flag-smiley-7324.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

Nothing wrong with it, just unlikely to exist and less interesting to research :)

[-tmm-]

The answer to that, Benny, is that they don't know what they're talking about, because the Normans weren't French! They were Vikings: "normand" (French) comes from nortman, meaning "man from the North".

To be fair, the Normans were as much French as they were Viking. The whole Norman philosophy was integrating with the local population (after murdering, raping and pillaging of course). In the case of William the Conquerer, his mother was French, as was his father's mother. That's why the Normans dissapeared from history, because they integrated too well. Although it's correct to say the Normans originated from Scandanavia, it's a misnomer to suggest that the Normans that invaded England were Viking.

[benny1982]

I agree with AnjaliUK. It would be very unlikely if we found 100% English blood in our trees. I have Scottish ancestors and no doubt further back I shall find Irish or Scandinavian ancestors.