> > > > > Then there are family historians - good-hearted people who > > > > > sometimes (sometimes is a key word here) waive commonly accepted > > > > > rules of genealogy to please family and friends. This includes the > > > > > righteous among us who properly insist on bloodlines but who will be > > > > > in for a few disappointments when DNA testing is universal. > > > > > > > > > > J. Hugh Sullivan > > > > > > > > Mr. Sullivan: > > > > > > > > Your above comment (extracted from the full post), made me laugh out > > > > loud as I recalled my kin folks' reaction to the discovery I had > > > > made that proved the maternal GrGrandfather was illegitimate. While > > > > the kin folks knew this to be true, they did not want such records > > > > available for public use (the record was found at NARA) and they > > > > certainly did not want "the kid" knowing of and discussing this part > > > > of the family history. Many offers were made to me---payments if > > > > you will----to withhold that information. > > > > > > > > Your lines above gave me a good walk down memory lane. > > > > > > > > Fred Frederick <[email protected]> > > > > > > your post brings up a good point. as i work very diligently trying > > > to research my family history while I still have my mother and my > > > grandmother to use as sources i come across a situation where my > > > mother and an aunt had been married for a short period of time to > > > different men. neither of them wants to share any of their history > > > during those times. I know of these marriages because they were in > > > my lifetime so I have written them in my notes for use at a later > > > date but how does a person make others in the family understand that > > > this is a family history to share with our descendants so they can > > > know where they came from and who we are, They enjoy researching > > > with me and love to find new stories about our ancestors but still > > > are adamant about not sharing a small piece of their past. How can > > > we make people understand so they will share? > > > > > > Robin Percy <[email protected]> > > > > If there is any degree of "shame" or embarrassment you don't change > > their minds. It's not history yet because it happened to them - > > history is about dead people. Genealogy is not about morals but no > > one agrees with me. > > > > One of my sons was married at 17 and it lasted less than a year. > > Was it a "roll in the hay" or is it genealogy? > > > > My mother would never speak of her father because he divorced her > > mother. I didn't realize until after she died that she must have > > had a father. She never told me she had a miscarriage. It's > > gradually becoming easier to speak of those things. > > > > When a person's mind is made up they don't want to be confused by > > facts. > > > > [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) > > I recently discovered that my mother was born some 6 months before > her parents were married. As I don't remember that set of > grandparents ever celebrating an anniversary, I have to wonder > whether my mother knew the truth. > > If my totally prim-and-proper mother were still alive, she would be > scandalized to learn of her parents' indiscretion. I'm sure she > would argue the point, but I do have copies of their marriage > certificate and her birth certificate. The dates are in the > database, as are notes about the marriage and birth certificates. > Forty years ago it might have had some social implications, but now > it's all historical reference... > > John <[email protected]> In my mind genealogy is not practiced as a form of moral judgment. Genealogy is not the problem. The problem is people who set themselves up as God in judgment after a voyeuristic research of dates. Hugh P. S. My mother would have been scandalized, too, if that was her situation. [email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan)