In message of 23 Nov, "Philip Thirkell" <thirkell@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > A few years ago I came across what was almost certainly a bigamous > marriage. From correspondence that I had received it was very > obvious their only offspring was unaware of their parent's first > marriage and I was faced with the dilemma of what to do when asked > for a copy of the family tree. In the end I provided an "adjusted" > tree which omitted any mention of the first marriage. Would others > have acted differently in a similar situation? A similarly abbreviated family tree was published towards the end of the 19th century concealing that my paternal gt-gt-grandfather had spent the last 35 years of his life with another lady and they had some children. I only discovered the details 100 years later. And now nothing is concealed. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org              For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org