morality and the war

[lockin]

My grandad was illegitimate born 1918. We have one living family member left who knows what went on and possibly who the father was but she will not discuss the matter even now.

Its hard for me to understand her hostility on the matter as Im only 30 and times have changed so much.

Amanda

[Procat]

Hi Amanda,

Times may have changed but you have to remember that that person has their moral "grounding" from a long time ago.

I have an 87 year young aunt who was born out of wedlock and refuses to acknowledge the fact. This is despite all the nephews, nieces etc being aware of it.

And none of us would dare to raise it with her out of respect.

Doug

[lockin]

Hi Doug

Thank you so much for replying to me. I fully understand what you are saying but I feel sad as I will never be able to ascertain the required information that I need to complete my missing links when it is held back by morals. I would never want to hurt anyone I would just purely want to be able to complete where I came from, who our family members are and what they did giving me my freedom. Not just for me but for my up and coming family also . It seems so sad after viewing so many treasured and beautfully written documents that the search may have to end. I can undrstand though that traditional values and morals of old have been lost at times now. I wonder sometimes if that is a good thing or not.

87 wow what an incredible age and I am sure she could teach so much about the way it once was.

Amanda

[Procat]

Hi Amanda,

I am afraid you have just hit one of the (hopefully few) brickwalls you find when researching. My own grandfather has no father recorded on his birth certificate. We have some ideas on the name of his father but no proof.

Just take a look at the topic on this forum for soldiers and you will see that it is not at all unusual to be unable to identify a particular person from a photo. Equally of course it is amazing how often they do get identified. it's just the luck of the draw really.

She's still a feisty old girl even at 87. And you do not want to be in the room when she and my 86 year old mother get going.

[alliekiwi]

I sympathise with you, Amanda.

I understand where Doug is coming from, about the morals of the day and all that, but what does 'moral' mean? Isn't moral about what is right or wrong? For someone to be dogmatically stick to their guns about information no-one else will ever be able to pass on... to me that is wrong and cruel and certainly not morally right. It's about being stuck in the past and being a bit petty. It's about denying someone their right to know information about their heritage. It's about chosing to believe that your 'morals' are far more important and worthy than someone elses need to know a basic bit of information. This is something that happened ninety years ago. Who can be hurt now by the information (unless they then go off and decide to look up the birth father's family and claim inheritance rights or something)?

The only reason I could think of where information should possibly not be passed along would be if perhaps it was rape or incest. Even if it were rape, though, there is no shame in the fact that the poor girl went through that (although I understand that some people in the past felt that it was still her fault).

I understand about brick walls when doing research, but one should certainly hope not to be faced with walls when someone alive has the information and is choosing not to pass it along to someone who has a vested interest in it.

Maybe the elderly relative could be asked to write a letter with the information in, to be read after his/her death?

Allie

[Procat]

I am sympathetic to Amanda's problem - indeed I find the attitude of my aunt to be frustrating as we are certain her mother told her who her father was.

Having said that though what makes someones "right to know information about their heritage" any more important than another persons right to remain silent? Except perhaps where it is a matter of a genetically passed on illness.

After all, as important as my addiction (sorry hobby) to research my history is to me it is often of no importance at all to others.

I suspect this is one of those philosophical discussions that could rage for years.

I certainly think Allies suggestion about the letter is worth a try.

Doug

[alliekiwi]

Having said that though what makes someones "right to know information about their heritage" any more important than another persons right to remain silent? Except perhaps where it is a matter of a genetically passed on illness.

Most people know who their father and grandfather were as a matter of course, especially people over a 'certain age' (taking into consideration things have changed over the years). We take it for granted. It's practically a 'given' that we'll know these things.

If we know our own parentage yet deny someone else knowledge of theirs... how can our 'right to silence' be more important?

Maybe one could argue the 'right to silence' over the 'right to know' if these things were equal, but in this situation they are not. When most people know these bits of information, refusing to allow someone to have what is generally considered basic information cannot, in my view, be excused away.

I'm sorry, Doug, I know you are frustrated about your aunt's silence when you are doing genealogy. However, it is her parentage and she has the right to be quiet about it... except perhaps to her direct descendents. Then, I think, they have the right to know. In Amanda's case she is a direct descendent, not a nephew or niece.

Shades of grey, I suppose.

Allie

[lockin]

I really didnt understand how important all this stuff was untill I started to trace my family tree and now its such a big part of my life.

I dont think my G aunt would write about it as she is very religious.

I will just stay hopefull that at some point someone will have my answers.

Thanks

Amanda

[General Melchett]

Sorry to barge into this discussion but this reminds me of a couple of things we found out about my Grandma after she had died:

Firstly she had had an illegitimate child during the war and that child was "sent to live" with relatives. My Grandmother never told anyone outside of the immedaite circle of involved people, not even her own daughter (my Mum) born in the 30's after she had got married. My Mother was somewhat shocked to find out she had a half sister who she had in fact known and thought to be a distant cousin.

The other is even more bizarre, when my Gran died we shought she was 80, only to find out she was in fact 83. Whenever we asked her age she used to say "I'm as old as my eyes, but a little older than my teeth"

When you are up against secrecy like that it's very hard, I'm researching her brother (my Great Uncle) who died in 1916. It's very difficult as I have very little to go on. My Grandma lost her brother and her lover in WW1 so she never spoke of it, or the child she had during it. Such painful times for men and women and we HAVE to respect their right for silence if that's what they opt for.

My grandmother was a wonderful woman, and knowing some of the subsequent things that have come to light have only made me think she was more special than we thought she was, she was undoubtedly ashamed of herself yet to me she has NOTHING to be ashamed of.

[Michael Johnson]

I think there was a lot of carrying-on at all times. A quick comparison of my great-grandfather's marriage date with my grandfather's birth date shows that great-gran was about one month short of term when she married. And my aunt was not much more than 9 months - if that - after my grandfather's marriage. My grandmother was actually illegitimate, but according to my cousins it was little short of rape, and the young man made a speedy departure to avoid physical violence. The baby was registered as my great-great-grandmother's, although her husband had returned to England at that point, and she would have been about 50.

[keithfazzani]

This is only anecdotal but I believe that before the widespread availability of reliable birth control many marriages occurred when a girl got pregnant. It was simply normal. I have read somewhere of some studies comparing marriage registers with baptismal registers which bear this out. I realise that this is not WW1 related directly but on perusing a baptismal register for the late 19th Century I discovered an unmarried woman who had brought 3 children to church on three separate occasions for baptism, there was no comment in the register and the vicar was obviously willing to baptise the children.

[alliekiwi]

I think there was a lot of carrying-on at all times. A quick comparison of my great-grandfather's marriage date with my grandfather's birth date shows that great-gran was about one month short of term when she married.

This is only anecdotal but I believe that before the widespread availability of reliable birth control many marriages occurred when a girl got pregnant. It was simply normal. I have read somewhere of some studies comparing marriage registers with baptismal registers which bear this out.

Yes, that's a similar point to what I was making on the previous page.

Post-WW1, sorry... In 1937 in New Zealand there was a legislative review about abortion and birth rates etc, known as the McMillan Report after the chairman of the committee, Dr D.G. McMillan. Amongst other things it looked at the number of babies being born, to whom and when. From a book which discusses parts of the report: Victoria's Daughters - New Zealand Women of the Thirties by Eve Ebbett:

However, the McMillan Report of 1937 on the incidence of abortion in New Zealand noted that "changes in social and moral outlook" was another of the causes of the high abortion rate, and, despite the condemnation of society, women did get pregnant before marriage. For instance in 1932 there were 1830 babies born to married women within seven months of marriage, the majority of which would have been conceived out of wedlock; this represented 23.02 per cent of the total legitimate first births for the year. In the same year there were 1262 illegitimate births - 5.07 per cent of total births.

On top of that, there were an estimated 6,000 abortions in that year, most of which - they assume - would have been unwed girls.

Allie

[DaveBrigg]

We had a family member born out of wedlock just before the war. The father was known at the time, but he made a swift exit soon after the birth, being German. Anyone know of a wealthy German baker living in Bermondsey in 1913? The details only came to light to the wider family seventy years later.

[PBI]

My Grandad Jim who served in WW1 said that the Germans could follow His Battalions Movements in England by the amount of Illegitimate Children left in it wake...(Grandad Jim was Happily Married ?..and Hung up His Boots after Fathering FIFTEEN CHILDREN),all after returning from WW1,so the Bromide in the Tea didnt dampen His Spirits so to speak..

[alliekiwi]

PBI, I think we can put some of the blame of Lack of Moral Fibre in the Youth of Today on your granddad. What an example to set. Oh my word.

I think there was always out of wedlock nookie going on - it was just easier to hide it before and after the war, with a baby being tagged on at the end of a big family, adoption, quick step down the aisle etc. Whilst the men were away it was more tricky. And of course today people don't bother to hide the fact they're not married but have children, not to mention more readily available effective contraception.

Allie