1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

  2. Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

  3. If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  4. This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  5. It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here
Cookies Not a member of the forum? Are you at the right site? Is this the right site? New feature!

Selective family history

Discussion in 'General Genealogical Queries' started by Bob Spiers, May 5, 2014.

  1. Bob Spiers

    Bob Spiers LostCousins Superstar

    As well as my own Tree I have compiled quite a successful one for my wife and my latest addition was discovering her Great grandfather – a widower when he married her Great grandmother – had two adopted children from his first marriage. This brought a reaction I did not expect.

    She made it clear that as the children were adopted and not bloodline (to her) she did not want them included in her Tree. I expressed surprise- indeed incredulity - and argued that this was a blinkered view as I could show descendancy from the adopted children alive today and living in her home town; but she would not be moved.

    I should point out that in the Tribalpages website I maintain on her behalf and indeed in the FTM 2014 database containing her family tree they are very much included. This does not faze her as long as the family I show in her Genpro Chart omits their presence. In this she asks only that I show her bloodline Descendant line commencing with Great grandparents (nothing before even though known) and to show Aunts & Uncles (with spouses), and cousins (without) and nothing more!

    I find all this strange and wonder if anyone else has encountered family members who are simply not interested in the full and glorious minutiae of family history?
     
    Bob Spiers, May 5, 2014
    #1
  2. Tim

    Tim Megastar and Moderator Staff Member

    But how does she know that they aren't related? They may have been his and that's why he married her!
     
    Tim, May 5, 2014
    #2
  3. Alexander Bisset

    Alexander Bisset Administrator Staff Member

    It is relatively common for people who aren't family historians themselves to take objection to historic information you have found. It is as if they believe that you are making a statement about them based on the unearthed historic information. As you say its simple historic fact it won't change one little bit how you feel about your wife. However whilst we family historians find the unusual fascinating, it has regularly been my experience that others feel that it reflects on them what you have found.

    I had a similar experience with a 4g grandfather who was transported to Australia for stealing a leg of veal and a waistcoat. I found all the historic details of his trial etc fascinating. A cousin who is from that branch and shares the same surname as the ancestor (which somehow makes it more personal to them) felt I was deliberately undermining the family name by having unearthed this story.
     
    Alexander Bisset, May 5, 2014
    #3
  4. Tim

    Tim Megastar and Moderator Staff Member

    There's nowt as queer as folk.
     
    Tim, May 6, 2014
    #4
  5. Margery

    Margery LostCousins Member

    My husband's grandmother went to extraordinary lengths to cover up her convict ancestors. With the exception of one person they all "made good" in the new colony. When my mother in law was alive she confronted me asking "why was I trying to find out all about us". Luckily the two remaining aunts are intrigued by my research and refer to me as "super sleuth":) .
     
    Margery, May 8, 2014
    #5

Share This Page