What’s the biggest skeleton in the closet you’ve discovered?

srmf5 wrote: »

You'd be surprised how disgusted people can get by finding out that a couple are/were third cousins, etc. Some people tend to use the term inbred quite loosely, particularly younger people. My own great grandparents were 2nd cousins and my aunt married her third cousin. I remember telling a friend that my great grandparents were 2nd cousins and she called me inbred. It wasn't in a malicious way but it also wasn't completely in a joking manner. I learned to keep it to myself after that. I personally wouldn't marry a known cousin but I wouldn't be judgemental about it either. However, it could easily happen that I'd unknowingly marry a distant relative if I married someone from the area where I was born. I've seen so many familiar names among matches who I had never known I was related to. I was actually surprised that Mum and Dad didn't end up matching each other when I got their DNA results.

I wouldn't bother with people like that and certainly would not class them as friends. The marital pool in rural Ireland was very small before mechanised transport and a cash economy. Look at any village and even today you will find the butcher's son marrying the baker's daughter.

OU812 wrote: »

Oh come on!!! You can’t just casually drop that into the thread and give more detail.

Two stars means double threat (possibly a third they went recognised for).

What is it they have them for and who is it?

Not that famous just got one for tv work and another for movies, barry sullivan.

Now I feel disappointed as have found nothing like this at all in my tree.
Kinda boring from what I have seen ie born, married,had loads of children many of whom died at or shortly after birth ,died and were buried all within maybe a mile or less.

Only things that seems different to nowadays is the disparity in age at marriage.Farmers seemed to be 40 plus a lot of times whilst their wives were rarely over 30 at marriage.
Fair few 5 month pregnancies as well .
This contrasts with other sides of my tree where urban labouring couples seemed to marry in their late teens or early 20's.
Also the speed of remarrying ie wife dies and widower married again within a year or two,in many cases to a sister, cousin ,niece etc of his previous wife .
Assume this was to help rear the large families of the time .
Couple of other things that stand out as different to present times include the amount of females living at home with no occupation at marriage,the amount of "boarded out" children and the custom of people,mainly women ,moving in with an elderly and/or unmarried relative at a young age to help out/work with on the farm or business.

Afraid none of the above qualifies as a "skeleton" or came as any surprise but is interesting in its own way.
Trying to imagine the elderly relative you either remembered or have perhaps just seen photo's of as a young child/adult having all the same issues etc that people still have today along with a few that thankfully have disappeared is for me a most interesting part of it all .

Mick Tator wrote: »

I wouldn't bother with people like that and certainly would not class them as friends. The marital pool in rural Ireland was very small before mechanised transport and a cash economy. Look at any village and even today you will find the butcher's son marrying the baker's daughter.

Well she's not my friend anymore. We were only about 15 at the time. That's why I mentioned young people being more likely to be surprised at it since they don't seem to realise how common it was back in the day in a rural area. I grew up in a small town that I went home to pretty much every weekend (pre-pandemic) so I know all about it.

I was actually surprised when I first started researching that my grandmother and two of my greatgrandmothers were in their 30s when they married. It's something that was brought up in the people living longer thread. However, I wouldn't have known any of my great grandparents even if they all lived to 100. I only knew two of my grandparents with one dying before I was born and the other a year after I was born. It's still better than my mum who had one grandparent die when she was aged 2 and the other 3 before she was born. Previous generations in my family never knew their great grandparents either so it's a phenomenon that will be missed in my family since we never experienced it.

Dad was 33 when he married Mum aged 28.
Grandfather 31 married grandmother aged 31 in 1956.
Grandfather 37 married grandmother aged 24 in 1952.

Great grandfather aged 25 married great grandmother aged 31 in 1923.
Great grandfather aged 32 married great grandmother aged 20 in 1911.
Great grandfather aged 33 married great grandmother aged 26 in 1914.
Great grandfather aged 35 married great grandmother aged 37 in 1923.

Perhaps I am too analytical at times, but IMO many of the posts in this thread are not ‘skeletons’ and are simple family background stories. Most could be put to rest (or ‘the test’) by a simple bit of research in for e.g. newspaper archives. The fact that one of my second great-grandfathers lost twenty-odd of his sheep to marauding dogs is not a skeleton but it does demonstrate that on the introduction (1865) of the dog licence large numbers of dogs were turned loose by owners rather than pay the two shillings and sixpence licence fee. Another of my great-grandfathers age nine found a dead body on the road near their farm – a murder- and he was, despite his age, cross-examined in court as a witness. Shocking in today’s terms, but not a skeleton.

Hermy wrote: »

And while I write this it has just occurred to me that I myself, being an adoptee, am somebody else's skeleton in the closet!

To me the expression ‘a skeleton in the cupboard’ is a pejorative term relating to an undisclosed fact about someone which, if revealed, would damage the perception/standing of that person in the community. In no way does or could it relate to an adoptee.

Events must be seen in the context of the day – up to about 1970 an unmarried mother was perceived by the State, her family, the Churches and society at large as a ‘fallen woman’ and at best an embarrassment or at worst a ‘disgrace to the family’. (‘Fallen’ even derives from ‘fallen from the grace of god’.) Such a pregnancy would have an impact on the economic future of the family (“Is he suitable for that promotion, after all, he let his young daughter get pregnant!”) She would be a social outcast and some of that opprobrium would extend to her family and its standing in the community. Very few families would have the financial independence to provide support or the courage as it would be seen as condoning the pregnancy. That is the way it was, whether we like it or not. On her own the girl’s future would be fraught with difficulty, her ability to obtain a job unrealistic and to hold it unfeasible, her financial independence impossible, her marital prospects negligible, her morals forever questioned and her very existence forever open to snide remarks. The father invariably walked free and frequently denied involvement; paternity tests were unknown until the late 1980’s. Should he contest paternity it was an uphill battle for the mother to prove it / obtain maintenance, as she started from a negative position of ‘questionable morals’. That is why a move to a mother and baby home and adoption was seen as a ‘way out. The State and the families simply outsourced what they viewed as a solution to the Churches, who in turn took on the task (their traditional role being reforming ‘sinners’) and made money from it. The rights of the unborn child were not even an item for consideration, let alone discussion, at that time. Everyone in society was implicated and condoned the ‘status quo’.

Today, for those who have such a child in their past, the situation is very complex, emotive and any perceived ‘skeleton’ has assumed quite a different character. They are in what many would perceive as a ‘no win’ situation. Most have since married and have families of their own; some fathers might not even be aware of the child; most (probably?) unmarried parents have not told their spouses and/or children of the past childbirth. Bringing out the topic now would be viewed negatively by almost all – the spouse because by keeping the pre-marital child hidden it was a breach of trust/honesty in the marriage, the children of the marriage would view it the same or worse because they would be more openminded and view the concealment as unjust. There also are serious legal implications for the parent since the Inheritance Acts confer rights to a child born outside a marriage who now would share the estate on an equal footing with other siblings.

There is more for the parent to lose financially & societally than to gain in searching for a past child. Add a layer of case law, new Acts such as that covering GDPR, several reports (e.g. by Incorp. Law Society) on what should/should not be done and the deep complexity of the legal background is clear. Is it a skeleton in their cupboard? Perhaps, but not one linked to having a child outside marriage, but one as a result of hiding the fact and ignoring any attempt to search now that society’s view is changing.

From what I have read, (and I'm no expert) very few (other than the adopted child) want to delve into the topic. Most such adoptees now are aged over fifty and over time the problem will disappear. Unjust as it is to the adoptee, it’s another ‘Irish solution’.

Mick Tator wrote: »

Perhaps I am too analytical at times, but IMO many of the posts in this thread are not ‘skeletons’ and are simple family background stories. Most could be put to rest (or ‘the test’) by a simple bit of research in for e.g. newspaper archives. The fact that one of my second great-grandfathers lost twenty-odd of his sheep to marauding dogs is not a skeleton but it does demonstrate that on the introduction (1865) of the dog licence large numbers of dogs were turned loose by owners rather than pay the two shillings and sixpence licence fee. Another of my great-grandfathers age nine found a dead body on the road near their farm – a murder- and he was, despite his age, cross-examined in court as a witness. Shocking in today’s terms, but not a skeleton.

To me the expression ‘a skeleton in the cupboard’ is a pejorative term relating to an undisclosed fact about someone which, if revealed, would damage the perception/standing of that person in the community. In no way does or could it relate to an adoptee.

Events must be seen in the context of the day – up to about 1970 an unmarried mother was perceived by the State, her family, the Churches and society at large as a ‘fallen woman’ and at best an embarrassment or at worst a ‘disgrace to the family’. (‘Fallen’ even derives from ‘fallen from the grace of god’.) Such a pregnancy would have an impact on the economic future of the family (“Is he suitable for that promotion, after all, he let his young daughter get pregnant!”) She would be a social outcast and some of that opprobrium would extend to her family and its standing in the community. Very few families would have the financial independence to provide support or the courage as it would be seen as condoning the pregnancy. That is the way it was, whether we like it or not. On her own the girl’s future would be fraught with difficulty, her ability to obtain a job unrealistic and to hold it unfeasible, her financial independence impossible, her marital prospects negligible, her morals forever questioned and her very existence forever open to snide remarks. The father invariably walked free and frequently denied involvement; paternity tests were unknown until the late 1980’s. Should he contest paternity it was an uphill battle for the mother to prove it / obtain maintenance, as she started from a negative position of ‘questionable morals’. That is why a move to a mother and baby home and adoption was seen as a ‘way out. The State and the families simply outsourced what they viewed as a solution to the Churches, who in turn took on the task (their traditional role being reforming ‘sinners’) and made money from it. The rights of the unborn child were not even an item for consideration, let alone discussion, at that time. Everyone in society was implicated and condoned the ‘status quo’.

Today, for those who have such a child in their past, the situation is very complex, emotive and any perceived ‘skeleton’ has assumed quite a different character. They are in what many would perceive as a ‘no win’ situation. Most have since married and have families of their own; some fathers might not even be aware of the child; most (probably?) unmarried parents have not told their spouses and/or children of the past childbirth. Bringing out the topic now would be viewed negatively by almost all – the spouse because by keeping the pre-marital child hidden it was a breach of trust/honesty in the marriage, the children of the marriage would view it the same or worse because they would be more openminded and view the concealment as unjust. There also are serious legal implications for the parent since the Inheritance Acts confer rights to a child born outside a marriage who now would share the estate on an equal footing with other siblings.

There is more for the parent to lose financially & societally than to gain in searching for a past child. Add a layer of case law, new Acts such as that covering GDPR, several reports (e.g. by Incorp. Law Society) on what should/should not be done and the deep complexity of the legal background is clear. Is it a skeleton in their cupboard? Perhaps, but not one linked to having a child outside marriage, but one as a result of hiding the fact and ignoring any attempt to search now that society’s view is changing.

From what I have read, (and I'm no expert) very few (other than the adopted child) want to delve into the topic. Most such adoptees now are aged over fifty and over time the problem will disappear. Unjust as it is to the adoptee, it’s another ‘Irish solution’.

Just to clear this up once a child is adopted the have not legal right to inheritance from original Birth mother or father . This is not a factor and won’t be .

I am adopted I know exactly where my birth mother lives that I have 2 half siblings and that my birth mother has never told her husband regarding me . I looked for medical info etc and had no interest in getting to know her . She would not even give me medical history. Social worker at the time when through priest .

I have since done dna and have identified down to parish , names etc but will never make contact unless someone contacts me .

I am definitely there skeleton.

My great grandparents married and a week later my grandfather was born. We do not know if my great-grandfather was the biological father or not. My grandfather was sent off down the country for a few years, my great grandparents moved house and along came this 4 year old, who was actually 5...

My grandfather had huge problems finding his birth cert one time and I believe it is because he had the wrong year of birth, but he never said. We found documents that my grandfather had in his personal files, baptism and birth records etc. Never took much notice other than to confirm dates etc, however on further inspection the dates of issue of these certificates show that my grandfather had researched this the old fashioned way back in the 1940s. So he knew he was born a week after his parents married but it looks like he may have been doubtful that his father was actually his father.

I reckon this scenario was pretty common back then, it's no big deal at all these days but back then it was a huge deal.

Great grandmother on my mother's side had her first child at 35. Grandmother ( her daughter) had her last child at 35. Grandfather would have been late 50s at that stage

I discovered I’m related to The “Stag of the Naul”
A barrister born around 1752, Leonard McNally converted from Catholic to Protestant and was an informer for the British. Tommy Monaghan wrote a play about him in 1998 called Viva La, a story of corruption among informers who ruined the United Irishmen’s plans to enlist French help.

Would be great to hear if anyone in this forum has a link to McNally’s North Dublin.

pinkypinky wrote: »

Impressive to discover a connection to anyone in the 18th century. Most people cannot get easily get past the famine. How did you discover?

I met with my Dads second cousin, she had hired a professional genealogist a few years ago, it was great to get such information.

Hermy wrote: »

Mick,

I don't know where to start with this post. It's by times contradictory, factually incorrect and completely at odds with the lived experiences of many of us whose lives have been directly affected by adoption..

Thanks for the detailed response. It would not be sensible for a non-adoptee to debate the topic with an adoptee. No offense was intended, if it was taken I apologise.

8valve wrote: »

My great grandfather was the illegitimate child of the local British landlord, who seemingly 'had his way' with the servant girls in his house on a regular basis. He was raised by a local family whose surname he was given.

I had a granduncle who emigrated to New York in the 1920s, reportedly became a part of the Irish organised crime mob there, and met his end badly, at the hands of the rival Italian mafia. To hide the shame of his criminality, it was stated that he died from 'the drink'.

isnt the drink a mafia term for forced drowning?

Discovered through the newspaper archives that my great grandfather was a master criminal.

He had a a couple of businesses including a fairly posh grocery store in Dublin where he was caught passing off inferior American ham as the Sacred Ham of Ireland. This was apparently a very serious offence as the magistrate fined him £10 which was a hefty fine for 1896.

In his other business, a country pub and hotel, he was caught by the polis for having 'illegal pints' Contrary to what might be expected, his pints were 30% and 50% bigger than the legal pint. He was only fined a couple of quid for that one. Perhaps the magistrate saw that as more of a public service than an outright crime.