Have you ever..felt a little uncomfortable..

[roopat]

  sorry Andrew that made me laugh, I was idly looking up the dates of a couple of family weddings I'd been a bridesmaid at, (these were people I saw fairly regularly till in my late teens).

No wonder I had trouble finding one of them, I'd completely mis-remembered the groom's name.....and I'm convinced my mother always claimed he was goalie for Chelsea FC......er no, there's no mention of him in their records. 

Come to think of it, now I look back he didn't really have a footballer's physique. 

I've been caught out a few times like that with things I'm sure I remember from childhood.

So yes, as you went on to say, it's the documentation that counts!

Interesting discussion.

Pat

[pinefamily]

My question about same sex issues was not provocative at all, and was not intended to be either. I merely asked the question when someone mentioned putting a note in about an ancestor being homosexual. As Guy mentioned, if an ancestor was in a relationship and you record it on your tree, then that should suffice. If they were not in a relationship, then there is still no need to record anything in my view. In years gone by, someone may have questioned your tree with two individuals of the same sex in a relationship, but I don't imagine it would get too much notice these days.

[Matilda SP]

I found my 3rd great-grandmother and her only son on the Old Bailey website--convicted of stealing and receiving stolen goods. (84 pairs of shoes.) My great-uncle was transported to Australia. For me it was fun because some of my relatives made a big deal about Great Grandfather being descended from a rather illustrious family. Well, yes, some of them were, but times got tough for my direct line.

It happened, it was real. The family fell on hard times when they moved to London. It is all part of the true story. And I put it all on my family history website.

[Ruskie]

.... I doubt if many of our ancestors were the product of a same-sex relationship so they have little or no genealogical significance . . . future genealogy will be somewhat different, with three-parent babies, surrogacy, genetic engineering, etc.

I didn't think humans could be 'the product of a same-sex relationship', especially historically (I'm assuming that you forgot an emoticon, Mike).  Perhaps soon?

One of my great-uncles married the daughter of an 1825 marriage between a couple who had different mothers but the same father, which seems to have led to some 'feeble-minded' offspring.  I was suspicious of an apparent marriage between people with the same fairly rare surname, but I found an extract on the web giving full details.  I find it strange that the church carried out the marriage, but perhaps the rules do not say explicitly 'a man may not marry his father's daughter' - which is what happened.

http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570145.html

[pharmaT]

.... I doubt if many of our ancestors were the product of a same-sex relationship so they have little or no genealogical significance . . . future genealogy will be somewhat different, with three-parent babies, surrogacy, genetic engineering, etc.

I didn't think humans could be 'the product of a same-sex relationship', especially historically (I'm assuming that you forgot an emoticon, Mike).  Perhaps soon?

One of my great-uncles married the daughter of an 1825 marriage between a couple who had different mothers but the same father, which seems to have led to some 'feeble-minded' offspring.  I was suspicious of an apparent marriage between people with the same fairly rare surname, but I found an extract on the web giving full details.  I find it strange that the church carried out the marriage, but perhaps the rules do not say explicitly 'a man may not marry his father's daughter' - which is what happened.

http://www.genetic-genealogy.co.uk/Toc115570145.html

For some time a child has been able to be legally adopted by a same sex couple and there is work underway to allow for babies to be the genetic offspring of both parents from a same sex couple.

[HeatherB]

Sometimes I think it is better to put something like the date of death and leave it at that.
Not really necessary to go into graphic detail of how and why, nobody really wants the world to know their ancestor committed a murder as a badge of pride.

 In the past often when someone committed suicide they put accidental death and then you find yourself looking for the accident, if others go on a treasure hunt, no doubt depending on the type of person they are, how they will react, some people feel tell the truth and shame the Devil, others feel the past should be left in the past and reflect quietly about it and move on.

Cheers

[Andrew Tarr]

For some time a child has been able to be legally adopted by a same sex couple and there is work underway to allow for babies to be the genetic offspring of both parents from a same sex couple.

Yes, we hear bits about that, and I have to admit I find it disturbing.  I am uncomfortable with what seems to me to be pandering to individuals' whims and providing challenges for boffins to see just what they can do.  Having been a (chemical) researcher myself, I understand the latter urge; but having grown up at a time when accepting limitations - and delaying gratification - was part of life, I have less sympathy with the former.  I might have liked to become a world-class sprinter, for example, but accepted that it wasn't going to happen.  In raw terms (and some won't like this) there isn't a shortage of humans on this planet, and many countries are realising that immigration can get out of hand.  There are more pressing problems than trying to help those who want children without using the normal 'channels'.

We are just getting the early complaints from women athletes who are being asked to compete on equal terms with transgender ex-males, finding that they are physically disadvantaged.  They have my complete sympathy.  Soon we will have a tripartite Olympics - males, females and others. 

In the 1930s the German Reich was condemned (among other things) for their encouragement of eugenics.  Current work in genetics labs is tending in that direction.

[lizdb]

Sometimes I think it is better to put something like the date of death and leave it at that.
Not really necessary to go into graphic detail of how and why, nobody really wants the world to know their ancestor committed a murder as a badge of pride.

Graphic detail -agree not necessary.
Badge of pride - definitely not
But if I am researching my Family History, ie what happened to my family in times past, then yes, if an ancestor committed a murder then that is part of the history and thus I am interested in that as a fact, and it is part of the story, so I wouldn't consider leaving it out.

[pharmaT]

Sometimes I think it is better to put something like the date of death and leave it at that.
Not really necessary to go into graphic detail of how and why, nobody really wants the world to know their ancestor committed a murder as a badge of pride.

Graphic detail -agree not necessary.
Badge of pride - definitely not
But if I am researching my Family History, ie what happened to my family in times past, then yes, if an ancestor committed a murder then that is part of the history and thus I am interested in that as a fact, and it is part of the story, so I wouldn't consider leaving it out.

I agree Liz.  I would not see having a murderer in the family as a badge of pride.  However, I do pride myself as seeking accuracy and completeness in my tree therefore I couldn't knowingly miss things out of my own records.  Obviously there are lots of gaps in my tree but these are down me not knowing things.