> From: "Philip Thirkell" <thirkell@blueyonder.co.uk> > 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? I once had a very similar situation. I had been writing to people on different continents, but little did I realise that they were two families arising from the same man. They had no idea that one family came from a bigamous marriage. I didn't deliberately reveal this discovery, it came as a realisation when our correspondence developed. The 'bigamous' family were not very happy at the time, but what had been uncovered was the truth. It was there for anyone to find if they dug deeply enough. Not that I think we should always blast people with uncomfortable truths, especially the very elderly. To me, this seems totally unnecessary and bordering on callousness. In my case the lady who had originally, and unknowingly, entered into a bigamous marriage was no longer alive. There was just a large family left and one or two of them had some real problems with the reality. Still, we continue to send each other Christmas cards, so I think they have come to terms with it. Peter Amsden, Argyll, Scotland Researching Amsden World Wide Outline History: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~amsden Books I have written: http://www.btinternet.com/~amsden AllExperts: http://www.allexperts.com/displayExpert.asp?Expert=38044 Never dump originals - they may be all that is left after the computer age.