What Is Your Opinion?
Pat in Atlanta
Ed, now 70, has seen my genealogy and is furious. He wants me to name
Uncle Walter as his biological father. I feel that puts a lie to everything
I have accomplished. What is your opinion?
Gerry
Is it possible that Uncle Walter was Ed's father? It's also possible
that Ed was told by his mother that Walter was his father.
Charles Ellson
If anyone is living it is usually easier to leave them out of anything
that is made public during their lifetime and avoid various types of
legal and other bother. If he has only been given a paper copy of his
immediate family then you might have the choice of omitting various
details and leaving the misrepresentation to him; anyone else who does
more than mere casual research is likely to find the true facts anyway
and it is quite possible that more people already know the "truth"
than he thinks.
Bruce Remick
"Pat in Atlanta" <pa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:d8GdnWoEjI5QGS3V...@comcast.com...
IMO, furious Cousin Ed won't be around much longer. If he can provide you
with some official documents to suport his claim, great. Otherwise, as
long as you're comfortable with the accuracy of your sources, humor him for
now and then go on with your research.
Robert Melson
Why not ask him for a copy of the birth certificate? Explain
why you have him listed as a step-son, tell him yuu'd be happy
to change things if there's some proof to support his claim,
yada, yada, yada. Do the diplomatic tap-dance but point out
that the burden of proof is on his shoulders.
Slippery Ol' Bob
--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is the probable
reason so few engage in it. -- Henry Ford
JDL...@yahoo.com
I can see possibly including him as adopted but I agree with you that
you should not be party to a lie. Does he have children ? If so do
they know ? If not I would simply exclude him altogether.
Every genealogy is different. It depends on what your purpose is. In
my case if they carry my surname I track them whether adopted, out of
wedlock, or changeling. And in the two known cases where a males
surname was changed we noted the change and stopped right there.
YMMV/
Charani
If Uncle Walter was not Ed's biological father, then you are quite
correct in showing it that way, no matter how furious Ed is about it.
Facts are facts and they can't be changed just because one person
doesn't like the truth.
End of story.
Dennis
wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:44:44 -0400, "Pat in Atlanta"
><pa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Eons ago my Uncle Walter married a woman with a 5 year old son named Ed.
>>Ed, now 70, has seen my genealogy and is furious. He wants me to name
>>Uncle Walter as his biological father. I feel that puts a lie to everything
>>I have accomplished. What is your opinion?
>
>I can see possibly including him as adopted but I agree with you that
>you should not be party to a lie. Does he have children ? If so do
>they know ? If not I would simply exclude him altogether.
A cousin complained about the fact that I included her divorce in the
family tree. I excluded her entirely.
--
Dennis
John P. Bromley
Yes, but...! Truth, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder.
John.
singhals
Ed's issue may be more about his LATE mother's reputation
than anything else. Depending on how you felt about his
mother, or how you feel about Ed himself, that may weigh
with you.
How'd Ed see your genealogy anyway?
Cheryl
Pat in Atlanta
"Gerry" <Mee...@Three.com> wrote in message
news:MeetMe-209B5F....@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
Pat in Atlanta
ert Melson" <mel...@aragorn.rgmhome.net> wrote in message
news:KbCdnSyzrc3qUC3V...@earthlink.com...
Pat in Atlanta
the family does.
"Dennis" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:seh2b49avbrq6bn2l...@4ax.com...
Robert Melson
"Pat in Atlanta" <pa...@comcast.net> writes:
> I haven't made myself clear. Ed knows my uncle isn't his father.
No, that wasn't clean. In that event, he has nothing to
be furious about. Politely tell him to stick it in his
ear and go on with your life without him. Sounds like
a royal horse's butt, to me.
Stupefied Ol' Bob
Erehwon
"Pat in Atlanta" <pa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:m5-dnT_butc3ESzV...@comcast.com...
>
I can't see dragging someone's skeletons out of the closet for public
display, especially for older members of the family. I basically keep two
genealogies. One supported by all the facts and a second "sanitized" to
maintain some of the more sensitive information as some family members would
like it to be. Until the older family members are no longer around, I'll
keep the former to myself. Families have hidden out of wedlock births,
divorces and suicides for years and have altered anniversary dates to insure
marriages occurred more than the requisite 9 months prior to a birth. Some
of these are extremely emotional issues for those involved, especially the
older relatives. I don't see any point in the distress that can be caused
by waving the "facts" in their face at this late stage in their life.
Robert Melson
"Erehwon" <inv...@address.here> writes:
>
> "Pat in Atlanta" <pa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:m5-dnT_butc3ESzV...@comcast.com...
>> He has children and grandchildren and they don't know. But evrybody else
>> in the family does.
> I can't see dragging someone's skeletons out of the closet for public
> display, especially for older members of the family. I basically keep two
> genealogies. One supported by all the facts and a second "sanitized" to
> maintain some of the more sensitive information as some family members would
> like it to be. Until the older family members are no longer around, I'll
> keep the former to myself. Families have hidden out of wedlock births,
> divorces and suicides for years and have altered anniversary dates to insure
> marriages occurred more than the requisite 9 months prior to a birth. Some
> of these are extremely emotional issues for those involved, especially the
> older relatives. I don't see any point in the distress that can be caused
> by waving the "facts" in their face at this late stage in their life.
>
>
facts. While I agree that the diplomatic thing to do in most
cases is to keep quiet about the facts, in this instance it sounds
to me like the "cousin" is deceiving only himself and his kids and
grandchildren. The choice here is to buy into his self-deception
or to hold the line and, basically, tell him where to head in.
I tend to favor the latter approach in this case, based on the
circumstances as given.
Sweet Ol' Bob
Schlitzy
I believe Ed's children will appreciate knowing the truth.
Publish all the facts in your tree. Documentation of the official
records trumps Ed's feelings.
Let Ed and/or his children publish their own tree with inaccuracies, if
they must live a lie.
good luck to you
Manaia Alofa
"Break me a Give!"
Anytime a man blows his top over claiming another's child something's foaming in Denmark and it's not his foam!
GRIN
--Manaia
Sir Creep
> "Pat in Atlanta" <pa...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:d8GdnWoEjI5QGS3V...@comcast.com...
Humor him hell. I just may be a researcher who happens upon Pat's
work and relies in part on the accuracy of the basic info therein (I
would presume that parental associations are as basic and fundamental
as one could get). So by humor him do you mean leave the data
incorrect for umpteen years? As a researcher, you can't possibly be
friggin serious. So long as personal info beyond the name are kept
private for living folks, as it should be, post it without care or
concern. Uncle Ed be damned. My research and my possible connections
to other family tree members it may bear take WAY more precedent than
crazy Uncle Ed's concerns.
I guess that means for those of you (and astonishingly that looks like
the majority?) who think you should compromise your research for a
whiny relative, you best be glad you aren't in MY family tree. Bottom
line, all our research is a race against time--our own. We will find
out what we can in the limited time we have on this planet, and then
that's it. Every day of research is precious...any other belief takes
you outside the concept of serious researcher. For you folks to think
it's OK for Uncle Ed to hold Pat's research hostage is baffling,
confusing, and counterproductive.
SC
Sir Creep
What? What the hell is that? Truth is, period. Anything not the
truth is an untruth. Truth isn't SUBJECTIVE, buffoon. Your statement
is completely incorrect on it's premise.
SC
Sir Creep
Too bad for Ed. My father was 'adopted' by his uncle/aunt...from a
girl my grandfather had an affair with....years later (read: 30) my
parents FOUND his real mother, and we visited her all the time when I
was growing up, but when we went to the rest of his clan, we were told
not to say we knew his real mother.
Cut away 35 years, and I'm doing my research and decide to visit PA
and talk to (on video) my last surviving great aunt who was related to
the aunt/uncle who adopted my dad. I started the tape and told her
right off "guess what, we've known his REAL mother for FORTY YEARS"
cuz I wanted the real reaction, which was perfectly sane, tyvm. She
then went on to tell me all about the first time her brother (my
grnadfather) brought my dad to the house and said 'this is my
son'....etc....I would NEVER have had this on tape for posterity
without the deicision to confront those in the know with the truth
about what I knew, and put hte whole story together. Uncle Ed may not
want to talk about it, fine. But he sure as hell can't stop YOU from
talking about it. Too bad for Ed.
SC
Bruce Remick
"Sir Creep" <sirc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f56d553-53fd-4200...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 23, 8:19 pm, "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Pat in Atlanta" <pa...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:d8GdnWoEjI5QGS3V...@comcast.com...
>>
>> > Eons ago my Uncle Walter married a woman with a 5 year old son named
>> > Ed.
>> > Ed, now 70, has seen my genealogy and is furious. He wants me to name
>> > Uncle Walter as his biological father. I feel that puts a lie to
>> > everything I have accomplished. What is your opinion?
>>
>> IMO, furious Cousin Ed won't be around much longer. If he can provide
>> you
>> with some official documents to suport his claim, great. Otherwise, as
>> long as you're comfortable with the accuracy of your sources, humor him
>> for
>> now and then go on with your research.
>
> Humor him hell. I just may be a researcher who happens upon Pat's
> work and relies in part on the accuracy of the basic info therein (I
> would presume that parental associations are as basic and fundamental
> as one could get). So by humor him do you mean leave the data
> incorrect for umpteen years?
By "humor him", I meant that she should disregard his fury until he croaks.
Pat has the final say as to what is correct. If she can document her
research involving Ed, she should be comfortable with her genealogy.
As a researcher, you can't possibly be
> friggin serious. So long as personal info beyond the name are kept
> private for living folks, as it should be, post it without care or
> concern. Uncle Ed be damned. My research and my possible connections
> to other family tree members it may bear take WAY more precedent than
> crazy Uncle Ed's concerns.
Keep up your research, by all means. And keep up your meds, too.
>
> I guess that means for those of you (and astonishingly that looks like
> the majority?) who think you should compromise your research for a
> whiny relative, you best be glad you aren't in MY family tree. Bottom
> line, all our research is a race against time--our own. We will find
> out what we can in the limited time we have on this planet, and then
> that's it. Every day of research is precious...any other belief takes
> you outside the concept of serious researcher. For you folks to think
> it's OK for Uncle Ed to hold Pat's research hostage is baffling,
> confusing, and counterproductive.
You sure are reading a lot into what Pat wrote. It would be scary to be
part of that tree you're researching, and worse to be considered a close
relative.
Charani
> Yes, but...! Truth, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder.
Beauty is subjective. Truth is not. Truth is truth, not "but"s
The truth is that Ed is *not* Uncle Walter's biological son but his
*step* son. There is no other "truth". Therefore, Pat is perfectly
entitled to record the relationship correctly, esp since Ed himself
*knows* the truth.
He's probably worrying about something that neither his own children
or their children will give a monkeys about.
Lesley Robertson
"Charani" <SGBNOSPAM@ mail2genes.invalid> wrote in message
news:48b27645$0$2935$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
True.
But it does serve to reinforce the point that it's a bad idea to publish
info about living people without their consent.
Lesley Robertson
gordongrening
father. Is it possible that Ed was born out of wedlock and that is why he
wants to suppress his true birth information?
I have run across a lot of shotgun marriages in my research. In one case I
located the marriage license for the parents and the birth certificate for
their first child and there was only a two week difference! Most of these
occurred back in the 1890's. I think they should have called it the "Lusty
90's" instead of the "Gay 90's." LOL.
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:RLosk.8608$Ks1...@newsfe02.iad...
Charani
> But it does serve to reinforce the point that it's a bad idea to publish
> info about living people without their consent.
Granted but there's publishing (as in on the net or in a book) and
publishing (as in passing research to interested family members).
In the first, no way should living people be included. I don't
include anyone born after 1900.
In the second, since it's within the family, there's no reason why
living people shouldn't be included.
The way I read the Pat's OP is that Ed has seen her research (second
definition of publishing) and is afraid his children and grandchildren
will see it too. If any of them are interested, they'd be able to
find the same information Pat has.
There's no mention been made of whether Uncle Walter married a widow
or single parent. Which Ed's mother was may be influencing his
reaction.
Bruce Remick
"gordongrening" <gordon...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Hcvsk.17111$Ep1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> Unless I missed a posting I have not read anything about Ed's biological
> father. Is it possible that Ed was born out of wedlock and that is why he
> wants to suppress his true birth information?
>
> I have run across a lot of shotgun marriages in my research. In one case
> I located the marriage license for the parents and the birth certificate
> for their first child and there was only a two week difference! Most of
> these occurred back in the 1890's. I think they should have called it the
> "Lusty 90's" instead of the "Gay 90's." LOL.
>
In this particular case, those in the family who might care apparently know
the truth about Ed, if I understand Pat correctly. If or when the
youngsters ever find out, it will be ancient history to them and they'd
probably think it's "cool" if they even cared at all. Seventy years ago
this might have been a serious family skeleton, but not likely today. If
Pat learned about Uncle Walter and Ed from public records, those records
won't be going away, regardless of how Pat might choose to cloak them in her
genealogy. It's not clear how Ed happened to see Pat's work, but there was
nothing that suggested she would be publishing it or posting it online.
Doug Chadduck
outta town, when getting to the neighbor's was about as far as you could
get for several months. Couldn't made it into town, to the preacher's,
until Spring. First baby came that Fall.
Phyllis Nilsson
family name. Neither he, nor his wife, nor his children ever knew it.
Some of his siblings were put up for adoption, some were kept by the mother.
All the siblings knew about the adoptions and had a reunion about 15 years
ago.
The daughter of the man who was born out of wedlock at some point several
years ago became interested in genealogy and published her findings on the
Internet. One of her father's brothers saw it, and sent her a nasty e-mail
saying her father had not been "one of the family" and she was to remove him
and her family immediately. He sent her documentation to prove this. She
was devastated. He threatened her with legal action (but didn't follow).
She didn't eliminate her father and her family, but because the interaction
was on the Internet, anyone would be able to find it if they were
researching.
However, for someone who was bent on the truth, he stumbled badly. His obit
omitted his birth parents, his adoption, even his true place of birth. His
death certificate will never be accurate for genealogy purposes, neither
will his obituary which omitted all his birth brothers and sisters as well.
His wife and children did know he was adopted.
Keeping secrets hurts everyone in the long run. Secrets are never kept
forever.
"Pat in Atlanta" <pa...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:d8GdnWoEjI5QGS3V...@comcast.com...
> Eons ago my Uncle Walter married a woman with a 5 year old son named Ed.
Fred McKenzie
"Pat in Atlanta" <pa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> He has children and grandchildren and they don't know. But evrybody else in
> the family does.
Pat-
It appears that Uncle Ed and his progeny are not related to you, and
only appear in your genealogy because of the adoption.
Gordon Grening noted that you made no mention of Ed's biological father.
It seems to me that you would be doing his descendants a disservice by
NOT researching his father. What information that may still be
available will be more obscure as time goes by. By the time a great
grandchild gets into genealogy and discovers the discrepancy, it may be
too late.
Fred
Tony Proctor
"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.ro...@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:76890$48b27b74$83b4502b$18...@news1.tudelft.nl...
It's a tough one. In my limited experience, I've already come across cases
of prison records, out-of-wedlock births, births through affairs, and even
possible incest. In my notes, I record sensitive bits in a different
font/colour so that I can strip them out depending on who I show the data
to, or how public it will be (something that the dedicated software packages
don't give nearly enough attention to!!).
The truth is the 'truth', though, and I reserve the right to know anything
that is knowable (if that makes sense). I get quite angry with some people
who think they own the history of their family name (even when they're not
direct descendants of a person in issue), and expect me to stop researching
something when they ask simply because they fear the unknown [I have a
specific case in mind here]
I would stay true to my research and record the facts as I found them. In
the published copy, I might just omit the item of information causing the
concern (e.g. a d.o.b in this case). I wouldn't lie about it - merely not
provide it in their copy of the data.
Tony Proctor
Tony Proctor
Henry Brownlee
"Tony Proctor" <tony_proctor@aimtechnology_NoMoreSPAM_.com> wrote in message
news:g94amf$ktt$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
I use Brothers Keeper which enables one to utilize multiple notes for a
person. You can have the notes individually print out in whatever type
report you want, or you can have them "never print." The info is there in
the notes, but will not print out if you so choose. I use this feature
sometimes.
Henry
Laurie S.
> Eons ago my Uncle Walter married a woman with a 5 year old son named Ed.
> Ed, now 70, has seen my genealogy and is furious. He wants me to name
> Uncle Walter as his biological father. I feel that puts a lie to everything
> I have accomplished. What is your opinion?
>
>
only the truth but for anyone living, I do not publicly include their
first name or any other personal details but this does show their
relationships. If you have done this also (I wasn't sure) and he just
knows it's him then tough.
Laurie
Steve Hayes
>Eons ago my Uncle Walter married a woman with a 5 year old son named Ed.
>Ed, now 70, has seen my genealogy and is furious. He wants me to name
>Uncle Walter as his biological father. I feel that puts a lie to everything
>I have accomplished. What is your opinion?
Does he have proof?
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/
http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/famhist1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7783/
Gene Y.
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:44:44 -0400, "Pat in Atlanta" <pa...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Eons ago my Uncle Walter married a woman with a 5 year old son named Ed.
>> Ed, now 70, has seen my genealogy and is furious. He wants me to name
>> Uncle Walter as his biological father. I feel that puts a lie to everything
>> I have accomplished. What is your opinion?
>
> Does he have proof?
>
>
>
--
Gene Y.
n2kvs
Researching Young, Zies, Harer & Cox with
Legacy Family Tree
http://h1.ripway.com/egptech/
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:44:44 -0400, "Pat in Atlanta" <pa...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Eons ago my Uncle Walter married a woman with a 5 year old son named Ed.
>>> Ed, now 70, has seen my genealogy and is furious. He wants me to name
>>> Uncle Walter as his biological father. I feel that puts a lie to everything
>>> I have accomplished. What is your opinion?
>>
>> Does he have proof?
>>
>>
>>
>More importantly, do YOU have proof?
Why should that be more important?
He's not MY uncle, nor my uncle's son or stepson.
Gene Y.
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:56:01 -0400, "Gene Y." <n2...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:44:44 -0400, "Pat in Atlanta" <pa...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eons ago my Uncle Walter married a woman with a 5 year old son named Ed.
>>>> Ed, now 70, has seen my genealogy and is furious. He wants me to name
>>>> Uncle Walter as his biological father. I feel that puts a lie to everything
>>>> I have accomplished. What is your opinion?
>>> Does he have proof?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> More importantly, do YOU have proof?
>
> Why should that be more important?
>
> He's not MY uncle, nor my uncle's son or stepson.
>
>
matter of consideration for Ed. Does he care about Ed's feelings or not. If he does, keep the info
and suppress it while Ed is living. If he doesn't care, then publish and the devil be damned.
Nigel Bufton
"Gene Y." <n2...@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48c11c6f$0$5559$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Is is not possible that Ed's biological father was Walter who, for some
reason, did not marry Ed's mother until 5 years later? Or do you know that
Ed's biological was someone else?
Nigel
Silas Grubbs
Bill in Atlanta