Genealogy Chat

I didn't see the survey referred to so have no opinion one way or the other. However, I wouldn't want to make sweeping generalisations about drug abusers, flighty pieces in Tiger Bay or Vicar's wives. If someone is the victim of rape or incest it is not their fault and neither is it the fault of the child who is born as a result. They still have the right to know for the same reasons as I suggested earlier. With rape of course, if the perpetrator isn't found that's another story. Nothing's ever perfect. As for donation, in future, anyone who doesn't want to be named/found later surely wont donate. I realise this could make it more difficult for those who can't for one reason or another have children naturally. That is not their fault. But neither is it the fault of the resulting off-spring when a donor is found and surely some consideration must have been given to this aspect before going down this route. I can't believe that couples would not have even considered the possibility of it coming to light and what they would say if it did. But to safeguard the children they so deperately wanted surely these questions must have entered their considerations......the what if's. Just listening to the plight of children who don't know one or other of their parents and who have no idea what, if any, medical history they should be aware of is heartbreaking - leaving out the unthinkable, a brother marrying a sister. Just my opinion again I'm afraid. Jan

It is interesting that these days we can with almost complete certainty declare by the results of a DNA test whether or not a parent is the parent of a particular person. There are cases from years ago when the courts would decide that a man was the father of a child (I forget what this process was called). And also my Gx3 grandfather registered his firstborn daughter of his second marriage with the priest. The priest obviously didn't like him - apparently not many people did - and recorded underneath the entry that he was also the father of a child born in the next village to an unmarried mother! What a naughty man. His two sons from his first marriage have also disappeared but hey, that's why I do this, not to know but to have the fun of finding out! ONe of my lines is a complete blank wall and the only person who knows the truth is gone to heaven a long time ago. I can understand the problems that this brings when you are trying to do your antenatal booking. I agree with the lady who was saying that openness is the best policy. If everyone is honest without being malicious a family can be the most complicated, convoluted, mish mosh on paper but the most delightful, loving gang to be in, in reality. Abigail

Amen to that Abigail, I agree, they certainly can. Jan :-)

Jan In reply to the above, no, it is not the child's fault to be born of incest or rape, but how would any of us react to finding that information? I think these situations were almost always covered up, and in my mind, for the best possible reasons. As for sperm donation, from what I understand, the donors were given COMPLETE assurances that they would always remain anonymous and I believe in the early days, no records were kept which would in any way identify the donor. The donors were almost exclusively young medical students, of PROVEN good medical background and therefore the dangers inherent in a possible unknowingly incestuous union would not be medical ones, and if everyone kept their mouths firmly shut, no moral ones either. I think that parents who went in for sperm donation were usually so desperate to have a child that they gave no consideration to the future. I believe they were advised NEVER to tell the child, but don't know if a promise was extracted? The risks are no greater than for two siblings who have both been adopted out, although I understand that the Registrar General must ALWAYS approve the marriage of someone who was adopted - the original registers are consulted to ensure there is no blood relationship between the two parties. This is discreetly done of course. What you don't know can't hurt you. I cannot help feeling that it is better to live in blissful ignorance of your TRUE parentage, than to discover that you were the result of a sperm donation, given in all good intentions to help strangers - but that the donor has and will never have any emotional feelings for you.How hurtful is that! A friend of mine was told, on his 21st birthday, that the man he called Dad, was not his real father. He is in his 50s now and has still not got over the shock, anger and upset. If you are going to 'tell the truth' then do it from day one. If everyone else already knows the truth, then tell it from day one. If no one knows the truth and never will, keep your mouth shut.For ever. Marjorie

As I understand it, from the Y-Chromosome DNA evidence there are about 1.5 - 2% 'non-paternity events' per generation. Y-chromosome DNA is that passed from father to son, and this statistic covers many tens of thousands of results. However as usual the randomness of the sampling must be questioned. Chris Pomery's book 'DNA and Family History' cover this well. These may not necessarily be cases where the father does not know it. The reasons may be illegitimate births, naughty wives (I feel a TV series coming on), second marriages where children of the first marriage adopt the surname of the second spouse etc. etc. Happy hunting: onwards and backwards. Stephen

Whoops nearly missed the posts - watching the Queen tribute in between watching the Boards. Saddo aren't I. I'll look forward to that series Stephen LOL. My opinion is always tell the truth from day 1 - then there are no skeletons to come and bite your b**. Nothing to be ashamed of, why hide it. I agree it's unfortunate (and some would say unfair) for the donors who thought they would be anonymous but still the children deserve to know. We've already heard on this thread from children who've been affected by decisions of adults and Marjorie's friend appears to be just one example of how these decisions affect lives so badly. I've seen similar results too and for what. Pride? Who's pride? It's very sad. Perhaps they should make it law that anyone who has children by donor or adoption or any other means than what most of us call 'usual' have to sign a declaration agreeing to tell the children as soon as they can comprehend - at birth!! and continue telling them until they understand at the same time as telling them that they are loved and wanted. We need to get out of this habit of people feeling ashamed about things. What's to be ashamed about - if something is out of your control you never caused it so you've not to answer for it. But what is in your control, bring it out in the open then hopefully in years to come there wont be so many people asking so many sad questions - just getting on with tracing their history which is hard enough under normal circumstances. It's not a perfect world, never has been and never will be but still I say it's the children who are important, they have rights and it appears those rights are deliberately overlooked by some. Think I better get off my soapbox now. Jan

Marjory - just interested in one thing you said- the registrar general must always 'approve the marriage of an adopted person' Really? When i married i dont remember being asked for my birth cert. in any case, my birth cert doesn't say adopted ( my ORIGINAL birth cert said that) so how would this happen? I certainly dont remeber being asked if i was adopted when i married. I was married in my adopted name, why would my birth name come into it?

I have now been married twice and on neither occasion was I asked whether I was adopted. I was asked to produce my birth certificate as proof of identity and this was obviously the birth certificate in my adopted name. No-where on the certificate does it state that I was adopted so without asking me, how would they have known? Or once you have provided that birth certificate, do they then check the registers to find out whether that is the case? Even then, I'm not sure how they could establish that you weren't marrying a sibling for exactly the reasons that this thread was started. Both of the men I married ASSUME they know who their biological father is....but do they? Lou

Lou, Glad you weren't asked either - was worring for a bit there! ~Jess~

Let's face it, without quite a lot of incest the human race wouldn't have got this far.... nell

Tracy, Yes - that would be a disturbing discovery for anyone. In any case, I bet there are a lot of people out there married to someone for whom they have some common ancestor not too far in the past, otherwise the population numbers just do not add up. I married a Czech woman so I'm probably safe to say any common ancestor will be 1000s of years in the past rather than a few generations. Andy.

I will check my information with my Pet Registrar and post a reply tomorrow evening. (I have also posted this message on the Adopted thread). My point about Flighty Pieces and Vicars wives was an illustration of PROBABILITIES and illustrated the fact that Statistics can be made to prove anything you want them to.The only way to put an end to speculation is for every child to have a DNA test at birth - do we want to go down that road? I 'know' my father is my father, based on the fact that he is on my BC as such, I look like him, my knowledge of my parents behaviour and morals etc. If he had a brother, I could be wrong - but I don't think so. Marjorie PS Christopher - you are the only person in the world who agrees with me that 'Fitz' indicates illegitimacy!

Have just read the various replies to this thread. I have 3 sons with two different partners, all have their fathers named on their birth certificates and were all registered by me(with their consent, but they did not attend with me), when my two youngest children were registered I was asked by the registrar which name I would like the birth certificates in as both parents names were on the registration document and I could choose! Also my eldest son who is registered in his fathers name has choosen to be known by my maiden name, when he applied for a passport the passport office phoned me and asked which name he would like on his passport, his fathers or my maiden name, so he has a birth certificate in one name and a passport in another!

Hi It was commonly known that some people in the past who had triple barrelled names were actually illigitimate. The mother would have had an affair and would insert a middle name for the resulting child and this was the real surname of the father. Obviously the husband would be oblivious to this. The giveaway to look for is if the middle name looks like a surname. Many people with such middle names especially those who have families with some wealth behind them and who think of themselves as somewhat superior are probably ignorant of the origin of their surname's. Regards,Michael