Illegitimate Child on Family Tree (How to Include)
Hank Lewis
Would appreciate suggestions on how to tastefully include
on a family tree an illegitimate child. The mother and child
are adults, with the mother now married, and both are on
excellent terms with the natural father and the natural
father's family.
The natural parents and their illegitimate child have no
problem with being included in the mother's branch of the
family tree but are concerned that the inclusion be of
a nature that will least offend elderly family members
who have little or no knowledge of the circumstances.
Any suggestions, ideas regarding accepted form/presentation
for this obviously frequently occurring circumstance will be
greatly appreciated - especially examples of how others have
handled this situation.
Hank Lewis
lo...@airmail.net
Jim Bridges
I have handled this problem three ways: If no one intimately involved
objects, as seems to be the case with your scenario, I have entered into my
data all of the information, including the fact that the parents were not
married.
The second approach I have used, when things were a bit more touchy, is to
enter the mother and child or father and child into my data, leaving out the
parent who was not connected in any way to the child.
In the last scenario, which I have done only once, I have respected the
rights of privacy of the individual, who did not want the fact known that
there was a child out of wedlock. Although I am not certain, I suspect the
child may have been given up for adoption. I did not enter the data into my
program. Although I had strongly mixed feelings about recording erroneous
information in my genealogical data, I reasoned that if the tables were
turned, I could easily be hurt by such information which I did not want
shared, and so I respected the other person's desire to have this information
deleted from my records.
Jim
DearOldDad
Hank Lewis (lo...@airmail.net) wrote:
: Would appreciate suggestions on how to tastefully include
: on a family tree an illegitimate child. The mother and child
: are adults, with the mother now married, and both are on
: excellent terms with the natural father and the natural
: father's family.
: The natural parents and their illegitimate child have no
: problem with being included in the mother's branch of the
: family tree but are concerned that the inclusion be of
: a nature that will least offend elderly family members
: who have little or no knowledge of the circumstances.
: Any suggestions, ideas regarding accepted form/presentation
: for this obviously frequently occurring circumstance will be
: greatly appreciated - especially examples of how others have
: handled this situation.
If you want to make a REAL family tree thingy for your kids or whatever to
look at later, just type it in the way it was (is). If the old folks
don't want to see it, don't give them a copy. Only my 2 cents worth. Now
for my 3 cents worth, Give them a copy and talk about it. G'Day!
Tom Camfield
> If you want to make a REAL family tree thingy for your kids or whatever to
> look at later, just type it in the way it was (is).
Yes. I know one individual who was about 50 years old and had been digging
away at his father's family tree for some time. Finally someone told him
that the ancestors he was piling up were not his. He had been illegitimate;
his father was someone else (still living in the general area, actually).
His mother later had married the fellow whose ancestors he was researching.
I rather think that the sooner the truth is known, the better. Illegitimacy
is no reflection on the child, nor on the grandparents. If the mother is
not uncomfortable with this, I don't think pussy-footing around is
necesssary.
Illegitimacy, in any case, is not longer the stigma it used to be; it is
now accepted as just another part of the passing scene.
Tom Camfield - camf...@olympus.net
Susan Mudgett aka little gator
First, you seem to be describing a child who stayed with the birth
mother and was not adopted-is this right?
This came up once when I was interviewing a second cousin about her
parents' descendants. She nervously asked what about her unmarried
sister's boy, was it ok to include him? I said of course, he was a
grandchild and I'd put into the chart whatever she told me about him.
So she gave me his name, mother, and birthdate. She didn't volunteer a
father's name and I didn't ask-I just listed him as his mother's son.
In this case, it was clear they wanted him included but didn't want to
talk about his father-and that's what I put in the chart.
David T. Hardy
In article <31AC6D...@airmail.net>
Hank Lewis <lo...@airmail.net> writes:
> Would appreciate suggestions on how to tastefully include
> on a family tree an illegitimate child. The mother and child
> are adults, with the mother now married, and both are on
> excellent terms with the natural father and the natural
> father's family.
Just put the bastards in. If it was good enough for royalty, it's good
enough for commoners; heck, with royalty a bit of bar sinister was
often good enough for a dukedom (or in the case of William the
Conqueror, a kingdom).
_____________________________________________________________________
I'm not an attorney; I'm just) dha...@indirect.com <David T. Hardy>
morally-challenged. ) http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy
)____________________________________
stuart/loam
In article <31ACF7...@monroe.ny.frontiercomm.net> Jim Bridges <jbri...@monroe.ny.frontiercomm.net> writes:
Another alternative is to enter the data, including a FULL explaination
as a note to each of the INDI records of the people involved. That way,
the data will not be lost, and in 20 or 50 years when things have a more
historical light on them, the data will still be avaliable.
If you are going to rely on notes for such things however, it's important
that you do it right, to increase the chances that they will survive
export to GEDCOM and importing to another genealogy package.
*) Use notes only at the top level, i.e. attach notes only on individuals
or families
*) Use only one note per individual or family, including all you wish to
say, rather than multpile notes.
stuart
--
--
Carolyn Wardlaw
>Just put the bastards in. If it was good enough for royalty, it's good
>enough for commoners; heck, with royalty a bit of bar sinister was
>often good enough for a dukedom (or in the case of William the
>Conqueror, a kingdom).
I had a child out of wedlock, and I dont call her a bastard.
--
Richard Brooks
In article <0608961533...@starship.horowhenua.gen.nz>,
car...@starship.horowhenua.gen.nz (Carolyn Wardlaw) wrote:
Carolyn,
I know it doesn't _sound_ nice, but in fact that is the true term to use:
bastard, n.
1. An illegitimate child.
--
R. W. Brooks (rbro...@northwest.com)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Always remember you are unique,
just like everyone else....
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
ter...@midusa.net
> > > --
>>snip snip
>>>>
I prefer the term "love child", although legally and biblically speaking, "bastard" is the correct term. My
husband found out a few years ago that he is a " love child". We find out so many interesting things when
we do genealogy.....and that is why we keep digging into family history. Regards, Ann