I have discovered a number of people recently that were married and never had children, when writing a narrative how do you approach the subject with compassion, sensitivity and no way of knowing why?
Paul is known for going beyond names, dates, and places in his genealogy. He tries to flesh out his ancestors with more detail and background on their stories, which is why he raised this question.
In the end, he tweeted that he would follow the suggestion of Derek and use this wording in his family history:
No children were found during this research - Simple, factual, sensitive, to the point and leaves the door open if needed.
How can we know why?
As a result of Paul's conversation on Twitter, I thought back to the couples in my family tree who had no children that I know of. Also I thought about the unmarried aunts and uncles and cousins in my tree--unmarried, so far as I know.
If we never knew these ancestors personally and no relatives living today knew them personally, is it possible to answer "why" in an intelligent way?
Or would we be speculating, with the benefit of hindsight and through the lens of today's perspective in the absence of any documentation?
Is an explanation even needed?
Well, being a family historian, I guess I'm nosy. I always try to consider "why" an ancestor did something--left the old country, got married at an unexpected place or time, left a spouse, left a child, and so on.
Family dynamics are affected by decisions like these, and I wish I could know "why." That's what I believe Paul was getting at with his question about married couples who have no children that he could find through research.
Will anyone care in the future?
The family historian for my Mom's side has spoken with me privately about sensitive "family stories" not able to be confirmed by a paper trail. I'm not telling any of the stories here, but one is exactly what Paul would want to know about couples on his family tree ;)
I talked with my sister about how to approach these topics. Here's what she said:
Is it anybody else's business why some ancestor had no children or never married or got divorced? Would telling the reason (if passed down as a "family story") add anything important to the understanding of those ancestors today? Will anyone today or in the future actually care? And since none of this is provable, why bring it up?
She and I don't have the same answers to her questions. However, we definitely agree that writing the stories down and putting them in my genealogy files is a good way to ensure that they aren't entirely lost...and will be available to my heirs in the future.
I'll seal them in an envelope and mark them "sensitive family stories" and indicate the origin of each story, emphasizing that there is no way to know the truth today.
Perhaps my nosiness about family stories might be of interest to a future generation?! I won't be here to tell the story, but my notes will reveal what I was told, clearly marked as a "story" and not as fact.
This is a sensible solution. It gives the heirs choices and access. They can interpret as they wish.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question - yep, we are nosy - and I like your solution. I've only shared stories of long dead people - 100 years or more - and they have no descendants.
ReplyDeleteIn my family research of childless couples and the never married I have often tracked their lives through Census to find their lives completed as beloved aunts, uncles and caregivers to parents and other close relatives. I like this quote by Louis Simpson, "Every person in your family tree is significant in time. There is no such thing as a life not meant for the person living it." Thank you for visiting and commenting on Tracks of My Texas Ancestors.
ReplyDeleteI know I'm nosy. And it's our desire to know the answers that fuels our research. I also have stories that have been told that are to remain private for now. But I still have a lot of questions that I will never have answers to. Great topic and great insight.
ReplyDelete