Jock Bruce Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 Discussed with some of the Pals at Kew yesterday but offered to a wider audience. I offered to check for any surviving records for a workmate's relatives. There are only 9 men of the surname in the medal index cards and papers survive for 5 of them (incidentally the first time I have seen a man's records in both WO 363 and 364). They all appear to be related. All fine and dandy. The problem is they are not great advertisments for the family. I've only skimmed the papers but both his great-grandfather and great- uncle were regular absentees. The former was a skilled tradesman who was released from service to follow his trade - the file includes a letter to the WO from his landlady asking for him to be removed following an attempt to strangle her whilst drunk. The latter was tried by DCM for something or other - I was running out of time. So - should I confine myself to giving him a simple list of dates/theatres/units served, or should I let him have the lot? Troubled of Kew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 Tell the truth and shame the devil ! Nowadays the concept of having any shame in the past behaviour of relatives seems to have gone completely by the board and they will probably thank you for revealing the activities of these black sheep and have a good laugh about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hill 60 Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 Jock - I'd go for telling the truth. I was under the assumption that my great grandfather was 'Mr Goody Two Shoes' after listening to my Nan. When I got his CEF records from my researcher I found that the 1st thing he did on arrival in the UK was to go AWOL! He did this a number of times (even 'in the field') and was also done for being drunk. It hasn't diminished my love or respect of the man, I have more of a liking for him now even though I never met him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris basey Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 Jock Always a problem when doing research on behalf of another but I believe that it is compounded if the researcher attempts to be selective in what he passes on. Most people are delighted that you’ve traced the relative, get keen and want to know more. Eventually having to explain your previous selectivity could be much more difficult. It is, perhaps, a good illustration of the need to include ‘a health warning’ about what might come out of the woodwork with any offer to do research. In this case you could give that warning before handing over the information and, truly Jock, we don’t have any responsibility for our own ancestors’ behaviour – let alone other people’s. Please let us know the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lynsey1 Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 Tell him the truth jock, if i had asked somebody to look up information for me, i would want to know the lot,warts & all, plus it helps build up a picture of the character. lynsey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordac Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 So - should I confine myself to giving him a simple list of dates/theatres/units served, or should I let him have the lot? Hi Jock: A simple question with potentially large ramifications. Maybe the question should be: if I tell my workmate the full story will it be of any benefit to them? Ethically speaking, omitting details while providing facts is not immoral. In the end, you should provide whatever information you feel most comfortable with. Good luck my friend. Garth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph J. Whitehead Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 Jock, You might also consider that the family already had a good idea of the troubles and situation of their relatives. I have heard stories from both sides of our family and it only adds to my history. I had a friend whose relative was hung in the 1840's, at least I can say that all I had so far was a gambler who pawned customer's jewelry and lost among other stories. I would tell all and let them sort it out. Ralph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate Wills Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 Tell him all, Jock. There is no need for the information to travel any further than your workmate wants. I know of a keen family historian who recently found a felon amongst her forbears. She was delighted, mainly because she she can now append a story and charachter to someone who was otherwise simply a name amongst many on her family tree. Added to which her discovery explained why certain of her relations clammed-up whenever his name was mentioned. My money is on a similar experience for your friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 The information is in the public domain, so there is no sense in which you are 'exposing' anyone. One point: you offered to help them; this was not a job they asked you to do and presumably not a job they are paying you to do. That would make me cautious. How do you think they would take the news? Would they laugh it off? How close are you to them? Unless I was absolutely sure of my ground I would be inclined to kick this one into touch with a list of dates and units served. Sometimes it is possible to say things which cause damage which cannot be undone very easily. If the family had asked me and paid me to find out everything I could, then the response would be different. But this does not appear to be the case here. There are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers but better safe than sorry? Kind regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Tulloch-Marshall Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 Jock - whilst the MoD had control of the records they cencored "reports" left right and centre - which in my view was a disgrace. In many cases which I've seen they destroyed the integrety of the "military aspects" by distorting or misrepresenting men's attachments or locations at any given time. On Friday last I accessed the file of an Irish Officer who was CM'd for having a woman in his quarters overnight (severely admonished), was later CM'd for accounting irregularities (severely admonished and stoppages of pay to make good the loss), "persuaded" to resign his commission, invented MC and DSO awards which he used on job applications, claimed to have been on the Prince of Wales's Staff in India, for the same purpose (untrue), repeatedly skipped London lodgings, had it away with a £90 motor car and was convicted (titling himself "Major, MC DSO" - all untrue and corrected by the War Office), failed to answer bail or pay his fines, and ended up in Wormwood Scrubs - and then by King's submission was stripped of his retired rank. Which bits of that will the client be getting ? - 100% - selective reporting is not an option - I believe that either you are dealing in facts of you shouldnt be dealing at all - or from the enquirer's point of view, if you might not like the answer then dont ask the question. If the file says "syphilis" then it means syphilis - it doesnt mean "slightly ill" ! regards - Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armourersergeant Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 Do i understand that the info is fro a work mates relatives, if so are they his direct relatives? It may be that he will take the news on the chin and then decide what he passes on. If it was me i would want the whole truth and nothing but. Arm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Bruce Posted 6 July , 2003 Author Share Posted 6 July , 2003 Thank you one and all for your thoughts on this. I think I'll sleep on it. Jock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Bowbrick Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 JB, Some good advice unless of course the workmate concerned is your Boss E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graeme Fisher Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 Jock The dilemma here is a little less than the one I had a while back, on offering some research assistance to a work colleague. She had some records for her grandfather's army service in 1916 and wanted to find out some more. A quick glance showed that the wonderfully detailed reports described a number of ambushes in Ireland, 1916............against the British Army! Sonetimes ya just gotta tell it the way it is....... Graeme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hussar Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 If it's any help, when I started researching my Grandfather, his records turned up a number of " Disciplinery Details" ranging from the humourous "...wilfully, by negligence, burning a pair of boots" through "Disobeying Squadron Orders" through to the potentially ( at the time) serious " Absent from place of duty" a couple of times. When I presented my findings to my Parents they were both delighted with all I had found out, particularly with the facts that he'd been " a bit of a lad" when he was younger as, of course, my Dad had only ever known him as a staid, respectable, family man. Of course, there is always the obverse side. My wife desperately wants to find out about her Fathers 2nd War service( he was with the 5th Army in Burma) but is also apprehensive that she may find things that will "burst her bubble" about where he went and what he did, when she is faced with the cold facts as opposed to his, and her uncles, war stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinWills Posted 6 July , 2003 Share Posted 6 July , 2003 Most reputable volumes on "how to research your family history" carry a warning that you may find that an ancestor was a petty criminal, a minor rogue, a suicide or a murderer and that you must be prepared to accept such discoveries may happen. If you are not happy with this you should not start, or so the advice runs. In the light of this I think the truth is the tale to tell, perhaps with a word of caution at the outset. As has already pointed out a little colour can add interest to a family history - after all not everybody has a relative who lived with one of Jack the Ripper's victims and was, briefly, a suspect.......as one genealogist of my acquaintance has discovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevebec Posted 7 July , 2003 Share Posted 7 July , 2003 Mate, Like most I 've had this problem more then once. Its always best to give the truth and let them work out weather they want to hear it or not. Doing anyone's family reseach you always run into skellentons. But honesty is always the bet policy. As a researcher to your own self be true. S.B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hill 60 Posted 7 July , 2003 Share Posted 7 July , 2003 'Suppresing the truth' may be a strong term to use, but isn't that what would happen if the family weren't told the truth? Wrapping people up in cotton-wool and shielding them against sometimes painful truths doesn't, in my mind, help anyone. So, there might be things our ancestors did that we might find shocking or distressing but do we honestly believe that all our family is 100% pure and clean? My ancestors include Royal Navy (HMS Hood) and Army (CEF) deserters, an arsonist and attempted murderer. Does this make me have sleepless nights because I am ashamed of my family's past? No, because they are people and people aren't as pure of the driven snow and we need to recognise that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john w. Posted 7 July , 2003 Share Posted 7 July , 2003 HAving just read this thread albeit late.. I think the safest way to proceed is to issue a warning and ask the person's family that you are researching, do you want it all? In many respects you will not come across this but when you do yes you will burst bubbles, skeletons will fall out of cupboards. Remember though this information is in the public domain and open to all... Failing that they can always go and find it themselves.. then the question does not arise... (accepting that it is not always practical to do yourself) It is an ethical/moral issue but one that can be easily sorted John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 7 July , 2003 Share Posted 7 July , 2003 I cannot agree that it is always best to tell 'the truth', whatever that is. Sometimes one can say things that cause irrepairable damage. A big consideration in Jock's case is that he volunteered to do this for the family. They did not ask him; nor are they paying him. That makes a big difference as to how to procede. It's one thing to ask for bad news; it's another thing to have a volunteer bring it to you unbidden. From my own experiences I am a descendant of a 'Bounty' mutineer. When I was a kid I thought that this was incredibly romantic to be related to this, as I thought, idealistic, man of principle who risked the gallows in the fight for justice, liberty, freedom etc etc. I was really proud of the fact. Later on I did some research and found out that he was a complete and utter b*****d who was eventually lynched by the other mutineers for rape, theft, assorted crimes of violence and general anti-social behaviour. My shattered illusions have not yet recovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Birch Posted 7 July , 2003 Share Posted 7 July , 2003 In most circumstances it is always best to tell the truth, but there can be instances when it may not be in the recipient's best interests to volunteer it if not requested. However in answer to a direct question the I believe truth must always be told. There are ways of putting this across so as to lesson the impact. To use a medical analogy:- "You are going die soon" is not a very sensitive way of giving bad news to a terminally ill patient; "I am afraid you need to face up to the fact that you are very ill" is probably a better way of communicating the information, and leaves the patient free to enquire further, or to deny the ultimate reality of what you are saying if they want to. "Your ancestor was a murderer " is again very blunt; "you know my research is showing that your ancestor was no angel" is possibly more sensitive and gives the recipient the opportunity to leave it at that, or enquire further. Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tintin Posted 7 July , 2003 Share Posted 7 July , 2003 It happened to me, honest. I had a boss once whose pride and joy was the family history he was writing. Family accounts gave him an uncle who had been killed on the Western Front in the XXXth CEF Bn. As he knew I was interested in Regimental history he asked me to look anything up, I traced the successor Canadian Regt and wrote to its British affiliate to ask for an address. I wrote to the Regt Secty in Canada and....he had n't been killed, he had chosen to take his discharge in UK as he did n't want to go back to the family.Eventually it turned out Aunty must have told them all he bought it to save face. Best advice is to break it to the chap gently, preferably in person (at least on the 'phone) not in writing. My boss was very shocked when he found his uncle had not died, but after a while redoubled his efforts to find out what really happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedley Malloch Posted 7 July , 2003 Share Posted 7 July , 2003 tintin; a nice story which show some of the problems one can get into. another complication here is that you were dealing with someone in a position of authority. Did your disclosure affect your promotion prospects? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon_Fielding Posted 7 July , 2003 Share Posted 7 July , 2003 A friend of mine had a relative imprisoned for manslaughter after a brawl while on leave in WW1. Family legend has it that he was freed on condition he joined the 'Black and Tans' in Ireland. He returned home in the 1920s with a severe drink problem and disappeared from the family's view sometime in the interwar period. Needless to say they have run up against a brick wall in tracing his service. I think all the PRO documents about individuals involved in the Irish War of Independence are still closed, unless anyone knows any different. The Tans of course were in many cases WW1 vets who couldn't adjust to civillian life. It's really hard to find objective material on them. One of those areas of WW1 history waiting for its historian I guess! First hand oral material must be in short supply... Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now