My sister doesn`t want me to do the family history.

[tazzie]

  We all enjoy what we do .... ancestry can be fun... not just endless list of baptisms /marriages /deaths or census but finding out the real people behind that.
 I have no idea why you sister objects....its your family and enjoy them high and lows included. We all have found some tasty little skeleton somewhere just shows we are all human . We have illegal marriages (6 in total ..so far) kids no marriage or they married when kids left home. One line who have totally the wrong name....thats great braking the news over the table.
 I even had a scare with my nan a couple of weeks ago. Found the baptism but father was not my great grandad...... send for cert  and panic whilst working out what to tell mum! However birth cert here today.... Albert is the father.... but baptism has the name of her uncle....must of slipped the vicar a sherry before the service.

 We had tears when we found my other great grandads death details in the newspaper after searching for him for 4 years.... sadness and joy combined.
 Never once did anyone not answer my questions or say no please dont. In fact 3 cousins are now doing their extra brances and after Christmas we will combine them.
 I love this little hobby so keep it up ..... ENJOY!

                                 Tazzie

[suzard]

What really annoys me is when family members only want you to do "selective" family history.

One member of my family has shown a great interest and happily received all the documentation I have found - newspaper cuttings , certificates, etc - then we discovered that a great Aunt was born a few months before parents married . The comment made was "I have heard about that before - that's best left lie."

She has now altered the age of great Aunt -to make her "legit"- and even altered the copy of the birth certificate - surname - added father's name - so she can show it to her grandchildren (who are all either married or living with "patrtners")

"Selective" family history -what a waste of time !!!!

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and interest - but musn't confuse the family story with a fairy story!!!!

Suz

[drodgers34]

In all the families I have tracked in the 1800s, I reckon the bride was invariably pregnant at time of wedding.

Not a modern type drama - they would have been happily courting until the inevitable meant the community would expect them to do the right thing - which they probably would have eventually anyway.

I dont see shame, just the normal scheme of things.

Pennine West Yrkshire by the way.

Dale

[ambers]

Hi Suz,

I am in agreement with Dale, most of the Brides in my Tree appear to have been pregnant at the time of their marriage..... so couldn't have been frowned on really.

I have only one that I know wasn't, apart from the ones that never had children after their marriages.

Possibly it was a way of confirming the lady was furtile, and therefore they would have someone to look after them in their old age.

Ambers

[suzard]

Most of mine were pregnant when they married - I think it was because once a female married she was expected to stop work if she was "in service" her employment would be terminated. If she was the eldest daughter at home her servces would be needed to help around the home. So i know there was no shame. They quite simply didn't marry until they had to finish work to look after the child!

The great aunt who was illegit was born 1910 - and the family were staunch methodists -so I guess they just kept it quiet thinking no one would ever find out !!!!
Then of course attitudes changed from it not being shameful -to it being a "sin" -  I know of several who married (1920s) when they were pregnant and sooner than admit to it they changed the year of their marrage when relating it to their children. There's many a time I've thought a silver wedding celebrated 24 years of marriage!!!!!!

Now we are in a society where it is not considered to be shameful for a couple to get a home, have a child and then eventually marry -and for the women to carry on working.

I think my relative likes everyting to be tidily packed in a box -and doesn't appreciate me taking the lid off!!!!!

C'est la vie!

Suz

[johngirl]

Hi all,

Yes most of mine were pregnant as well when they married including my own mother.
This is not what my sister is really upset about. In her opinion my mother was a private person so therefore I should keep my mothers ancestors private as well.
My sister reckons my mother[who is now deceased]would be horrified about me dredging up our ancestors.The trouble is my sister cannot or will not tell me why mother would be upset by this. Not once did I ever hear my mother say that she never wanted us to delve into our family history.
That sister of mine it seems to me is just jealous that I have found who our ancestors were. I done something that she probably wanted to take the credit for

       Johngirl

[lizdb]

In her opinion my mother was a private person so therefore I should keep my mothers ancestors private as well.

But the fact is - with censuses, and BMD indexes, and other surviving documents available on the internet, and available to view at Local Record Offices, information about ancestors is not private. Anyone can easily have access to it. It is good that you are piecing together this information in a structured and helpful way, to keep the information about your ancestors factual, ordered and less subject to misinterperatation.

You not doing family history research will not make the information about your ancestors more private! That would be the case if no one could see the info other than you, and you then publisized it. But whatever you have found, anyone else could find too! (if they wanted to)

[johngirl]

Yes lizdb thats exactly right. My sister knows nothing does she.

If only she took the time to see what I have found and put together instead of trying to tell me it would be against my mothers wishes she may then see I`m not out to ruin my mothers privacy.

   Johngirl

[ambers]

Hi johngirl,

Maybe you should explain to your sister about all the records being in the public eye anyway.

Anyone of your distant rellie's could follow your line through, and put it on the Web, and it's best for someone in your family to do it and make sure that it is correct.

I followed the daughter of one of mine that had an illlegitimate son very young in the 1860's, more out of worry about what happened to her, to find her in later years married to a man with a very good job. I then found her son in later years, owning his own business.

I wonder what she means by your mum being a very private person, both my sister and mum were private people, but with regards to  not talking much about their lives to others very much ...there was nothing to hide!
My sister died at 54, but I know this is the hobby she wanted to follow as we talked about it, and she had even brought some photographs up to me to try and sort out the background. Just as well because her husband destroyed everything after her death including all my parents documents. ... and I starting doing it on her behalf then.
Mum would have been thrilled about how I have traced her family back, and would have constantly needed up-dating on the progress. I think all three of us would have been addicted.

It must annoy your sister with what you have discovered, I bet she is envious of your skills really, and would dearly like to know what you know.

Ambers