A whitewashed tree, cos Mother won't like it?

[Janet in Yorkshire]

Some time ago a gentleman contacted me to ask if I could explain why his gt gdma Rosie and her brother had a different surname from their mother in census - had the mother been married twice?
I explained she hadn't - the children were illegitimate, there was another sibling with the grandparents and a first baby who had only lived for a few days, so that made four illegitimate children in all.
His response was "oh dear - mother won't like that. I shall have to think of something to tell her!"
A bit later he sent me updated info on Rosie, her marriage and her children - he knew the info was "right" because Rosie's second child was his own grandfather.
I've only recently got around to dealing with Rosie as she's a distant twig. She allegedly married in 1889 and her first child was born in 1890. I found the family in 1891 census, Mum, Dad, and baby aged 6 months. However, I couldn't find baby's birth reg at all.
As you've probably guessed, I eventually found it in Dec qtr 1890, but under Rosie's maiden surname, not her husband's and the marriage was registered in the same quarter. But baby must have come first!

Why would you want to whitewash your tree like that, about something that happened over a hundred years ago? Or is it simply because "mother" didn't like it and wasn't having "any of that" on her tree?
If he delves any deeper into this extended family "mother" will not have to be told ANYTHING of his researches - four children before marriage was not a one off case!

[Christine in Herts]

Ooooops!

Christine

[Little Nell]

I've got a family tree chart that OH was looking at today. He noted I have two blank areas going back as I had 2illegitimate gt gt grandmothers and no idea who the fathers were. {I have found lots of illegit children in my tree, but these are the only ones who are in my direct line of descent}

OH smugly noted that there were no illegitimate children on HIS line of descent, but I pointed out that ALL the Welsh side were children born within 7 months of marriage if not earlier - and one of them was born before the marriage, but registered with her father's surname.

[Olde Crone Holden]

One of the managers at my local LDS centre told me that she never transcribes illegitimate births, and she knows of other transcribers who doctor the dates to make it all look respectable.

I have occasion to know this to be true - the nine siblings of my 2 x GGF were all nicely baptised in the same church to the same parents - but not my 2 x GGF, according to the IGI.

When I got the parish register to look, there was my man, illegitimate son of a sister of his "father". As my 2 x GGF was brought up believing his uncle and aunt to be his parents, and that is what his birth cert said, lol, this was a bit of a shock.

OC

[Sue from Southend]

My Dad laughed when I told him that his gt grandparents had 5 children before they got married... But was not amused that his own parents had married only 7mths before the birth of his sister!

[Margaret in Burton]

I think it all to with with the thinking that "parents didn't do that sort of thing".

I have a second cousin in his thirties who was very upset when he realised his mum was pregnant with him when his parents married.

He said to me that he didn't believe his mum was like that and it really upset him. This was a person who has had so many girlfriends I have lost count.

My mother in law told me that her and father in law went away before they were married and was shocked when they are offered a double room. This was in 1950. She told the landlady that they couldn't have that as they weren't married. I'm afraid I laughed and she told me that they didn't do that sort of thing!!

I said that I had so many cases of 5-7 month pregnancies I had lost count. She was very shocked. I found out that her own maternal grandmother was pregnant when getting married. That's when she told me that this family tree lark was wrong and things should be left well alone. Thank goodness the rest of the family don't think like that.

[Phoenix]

I am still shocked and saddened by the fact that my mother's favourite uncle lived for nearly forty years in a loveless marriage and allegedly beat his wife.

He has been dead for years and there is no way I can really find out what that marriage was like, but it was clearly worlds away from what I preceived it as a child.

While I want my tree to be as accurate as possible, what is a hobby to me is much more important to other people. I would not ever feel I had a right to tell the truth about someone who could not defend themselves to their close relations unless I felt certain I was not doing harm.

[becky81]

My grandmother would not like to know that I have a suicide or an "idiot" in my tree (on her husband's side) although if I did tell her she would probably think it typical of my grandfather's family!! While I won't go out of my way to tell her I won't hide it on my tree either. If she is interested and asks then I won't lie, but I don't see the point in putting it under her nose.

[Margaret in Burton]

My grandmother would not like to know that I have a suicide or an "idiot" in my tree (on her husband's side) although if I did tell her she would probably think it typical of my grandfather's family!! While I won't go out of my way to tell her I won't hide it on my tree either. If she is interested and asks then I won't lie, but I don't see the point in putting it under her nose.

Yes I agree with that.

My grandad commited suicide. I know all of his children, my aunts and uncles, knew this but I never actually showed them the death cert when I sent for it. It looks much worse in black and white on a cert.

Self inflicted throat wound makes you stop and think.

They are all dead now anyway.

[vikki brace]

I always look at it, that I am doing this so that generations to come know the facts, not the fantasies. So I am including the warts and all

Some relatives would prefer me to edit it, but whats the point of that? I can't change the past so like it or lump it, thats my philosphy ;)

[Christine in Herts]

I feel that these things are part of what makes the ancestors real people. We all have problems of one kind or another. Some people's lives are harder/duller than others... that's just how it is. I agree with Vikki that changing the facts to fit the preferred scenarios (i.e. lying) is unhelpful - but as others have also remarked, there's no need to be unkind by forcing unwelcome information onto people who would rather not know.

Christine

[Janet in Yorkshire]

Thankyou all for your responses and I agree with both camps.

I am still mindful of what is in the file that I share with any interested cousins (hardly any of those) and only include up to 1901 census, which shows both our communal grandparents, but before their marriage in 1914.

However, if I was passing on any of this information to a fellow researcher, then it would have to be warts and all - I see no point is giving them mis-information, by altering dates to fit in with a whitewashed tree. I reckon that once a serious family historian found I'd knowingly concocted the facts, they'd regard my research as "suspect " and wouldn't want to work collaboratively anyway.

I've been to the local record office today chasing up two other girls from this extended family - they were VERY circumspect!

[BC]

A whitewashed tree 'cos Mother wouldn't like it - Oh yes, I can understand it even though I don't approve of falsifying these ancestors lives.Some 40 years ago my mother got very ' uptight ' when I told her that a cousin and myself ( our fathers were brothers ) were about to start researching our father's families and said it was ' all wrong, shouldn't be allowed etc. '. This spurred us on, of course, and I just didn't mention it again. No doubt she was aware of the family skeletons in the cupboard because she did say it would not be possible anyway as there had been a change of name at some point. True, but it didn't prevent us getting back to the mid-1700's. I dread to think what her reaction would be if she knew I have been working on her family for several years now, in view of some of the skeletons found !