> > > > Forty years ago it might have had some social implications, but now > > > > it's all historical reference... > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > As I've said, distance of time and kinship and f2f interaction > > > affects one's attitude there. > > > > > > If it's your great-grandmother who got "caught" back in the > > > naughty-aughties, it's historical reference. If it's your pious > > > aunt, at whose home you now celebrate some important holiday, it's a > > > little less historical. If it's your 16-yr-old daughter, it isn't > > > in the least bit historical. > > > > > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> > > > > Hysterical? 8-) > > > > J. Hugh Sullivan > > Not yet. > > Cheryl Singhals <[email protected]> I have an uncle, whose wife was married twice before him and brought 2 teen sons into the marriage. Obviously, everyone knows that the children from her previous marriages are not blood relatives. The children were not adopted. However, my uncle wife has requested I leave her previous marriages off the genealogy. I would have no problem with that, except in the interest of truth for history, I cannot leave the boys off totally because my aunt and uncle have a child and the older boys are his half brothers. Plus, if someone looks at the research in 60 years, I believe that it should be clear that although these young men are "family" they are not biological or adoptive relatives. For clarification, my aunt is not in the least private about her marriages and the dirty laundry that goes with it. Therefore, I have chosen to keep my research accurate. I would never post the information online as I would never post any information online about any living relative. "S Bockoven" <[email protected]>