General Chat

A few days ago a lady contacted me (not through GR) and I knew very well the g.gparents she was chasing - what info she had was completely wrong due to incorrect info being posted on internet and about 7 trees taken off it - all incorrect.

I gave her corrected dates and she asked for more info. Fair enough I asked her could she accept that our ancestors were not always whiter than white. Oh yes we all make mistakes - her words.

Until I sent her a census, and 2 marriage certificates both of her g.gma marrying as a spinster and her father was the same, with same occupation but two different men!

Now informs me she reckons gran was abandoned - well yes she was - he went to S.Africa to fight the Boer War. did not die there but gran was remarrying 5 months after Boer War finished and she had had 2 children - one living.

But apparently this is my fault.

Sounds as though gran took the common sense approach and got herself a new man - how else was she to support her family?

For some reason there is this perception that previous generations were extremely prudish, strictly brought up and whiter than white. In fact, this was a long way from the truth. The only difference there wasn't the state to bale you out if you got caught short.

I really don't see why someone should be upset about finding out the truth of what happened years ago. You can't change it now, like it or not.

It certainly makes research more interesting! Strange thing is that this is about the fifth person in this family to either make an approach to cousin or myself and don't want to know about g.gdad or his siblings - three times we have sent details of mariages and been cut off,

This I find it amusing that I am blamed for it and she is looking for all sorts of excuses for g.granny! The last marriage took place in 1903 for goodness sake.

OH's maternal gfather is the worst (I have posted this before) just a few months ago discovered he had committed bigamy FOUR times. He was a skinny wee runt with a face like a ferret. I wouldn't spit on him. Am very grateful OH neither inherited his looks or morals!!!!

LOL Chris!!

LOL again Chris. Brilliant description!

Hey, Chris, how can you be sure your OH doesnt have a couple of other wives hidden away somewhere?

Huia, tongue in cheek.

Huia - NEVER - he did not have any energy left (or money) after coping with me!!!!!!!

I am just conjuring up the image of you walking down the aisle with a Ferret!

as opposed to years ago when skeletons had to remain in the cupboard-nowadays I feel that everyone [or most of us]hopes for a "Jack the Ripper" to turn up and be able to dine out on the story for ever.My own mother always frowned on her children looking up the past.It wasnt until she had "passed" that I found that her and her siblings had a [lovely] mother[good old gran!] who wasnt married to their father!!!!!!!!! Oh the shame!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't believe we should judge the actions of our ancestors. I often have people comment on the fact that an ancestor married very soon after the death of their spouse. With no welfare benefits how on earth was a woman supposed to look after her children and how was a man to work if he had a young family and a household to run?

I have also heard comments that people were used to losing their young children as infant mortality rates were very high. When I look at a photo of my paternal great grandmother I can't believe that she took the 4 children she lost in her stride. She looks sad and weary - the photo was taken only months after she lost 2 infants and a fourteen y.o. son. Two years before that she lost a 2 y.o. You would have no choice but to carry on but it would be with a heavy heart I'm sure.

Sue

Have to agree, dont think it matters what century you lived in.......losing a child does not bear thinking about........losing a child you could not nourish and keep warm, must have been unbearable.

My great gran died March 1901, her OH was remarried June 1901...he was left with five small children......the alternative to remarriage in those days was I suppose the workhouse!

Annx

My roots are in IOM and research has showed that very often when a young mum died (usually mums) her sister moved in to take care of children and within 2-3 months they had married. Now it was against the law to marry a SIL or BIL but they got over that by going to another parish where the vicars must have just turned a blind eye.

My gran lost her first 2 children both around a year old to convulsions caused by teething. She never forgot them apparently and I have studio photos of both of them - hard to tell girl from boy but one babe has a bit more lace on the frock!

A mother will never forget a child and one child will never replace another.

Agree Chris, my nans baby died at 18months, I also have a photo of her sitting in the garden at my nans house........she was such a bonny baby. My mum was born a year later, and that photograph was never taken from its place on the sideboard whilst my nan was alive. It was the only photograph they had of her and it was taken by a neighbour showing off his new camera..........mum said my nan was so thrilled to have it.

Hey. It's always easier to blame others than to accept a truth. My father blamed me for everything that happened to them. From my existence holding him back or my mother catching a cold and as for the shame of their grandson having autism...

How silly this woman is but how sad too. She is blinkered and embarrassed by her past. Let her get on with it. Bit of a cheek though to respond to your help in such a badly behaved manner.

Don't let it put you off.

Jill

The Victorians were fascinated by death and would sometimes have photographs taken of their dead children as if they were still alive.I have heard of one such picture of a couple taken in a photographer's studio with the body of their twelve year ol daughter standing between them with a hand on one shoulder of each parent.

Death was like the Victorians' sex.

Thanks Sharron. I've nearly vomitted into my late night hot choc. Just when you think you've heard everything about the Victorians. I mean have you seen the way they posed kittens.

Yuk and double yuk.

Jill

My gran created most skeletons!! (and told the most 'porkies')
...and she was such a lovely lady!!
I can still see her, fag in mouth scratching her pig's bellies.

Oh -and she made me and my cousin (aged 11 and 10 ) sit on Princess- the most violent of cows,and smoke 5 Woodbines each for stealing just the one!!!
Harsh!! LOL

She really was a lovely lady, though. When a man she had adopted as a 4 year old later on in her life contacted me,and I jokingly pointed out that she wasn't 'whiter than white' (ie my dad and his sister were illegitimate) -he refused to talk to me!!
My reaction? Well sorry - just look at the birth registers-both had her maiden name. Not my fault - just fact!!!

Well I am afraid that even in todays modern society there are still people out there with the same views regarding illegitimacy etc.

My In-Laws were approached by their daughter asking them not to "celebrate" their 50th as this would let everyone know that their daughter was was well on the way at the time.......like everyone would be sitting there trying to work it out!!!! I was stunned to say the least, this was in the 1990's.

My own parents were expecting little ole me when they married, I feel quite proud of the fact that I was there on the day! lol

Annx

I think that the more 'trouble' you find then the more interesting it is.

I dont know why she is blaming you chris,,,,we cant all have tree's that are neat and tidy.

I would just LOVE to find a little *interest* in my trees.
My living rellies have enough skeletons, where are the ancestors?
They all seem to have been hard working salt of the earth people.... BUT... I will keep on digging .;-0)
Deanna X