From the July-August 2022 issue of Digging History Magazine, an extensive article regarding the pitfalls of genealogical research. Sometimes what we uncover can be potentially shocking or devastating . . . here is an excerpt:
If you’ve been researching family history for awhile, it’s possible you, like me, have come across unexpected – or perhaps even shocking – information about one or more of your ancestors. How should we respond? Do we freely share the information or hide it away? Of course, our response may depend on what we uncovered.
I’d have to say some of the most shocking examples I’ve uncovered for clients is something no family member may want to ever talk about, especially if it’s part of recent family history. For an understandably good reason it’s often swept under the rug, although I uncovered a family tree at Ancestry which is the most mind-blowing example I’ve ever seen. These types of situations are extremely painful, and genealogically-speaking, can potentially complicate a family tree no matter how long ago it occurred. You might discover it in a contemporary newspaper clipping or in early colonial church records.
Incest
Dating back to Biblical times, incest, generally defined as having sexual relations with a person too closely related, was considered one of the most egregious sins, punishable in certain cases by death (Leviticus 20). Because the majority of articles in this publication focus on American history, let’s fast forward to the nation’s early colonial era and how our ancestors dealt with incest – was it a sin or a crime (or both)?
Most early American colonists were British subjects, so it’s no surprise the laws they adopted were largely based on, although not entirely identical to, English Common Law. However, each colony was governed independently and its laws were therefore different despite being based on English Common Law.
For example, while you won’t find mention of “incest” in early Massachusetts colonial laws, evidence suggests the government still had authority to pass laws regulating incestuous marriages. In 1670 the Court of Assistants, Massachusetts’ highest court of original jurisdiction, ruled it was unlawful for a widower to marry his deceased wife’s sister. Several other egregious acts were covered in early colonial laws, so why wasn’t the sin/crime of incest addressed?
According to a Columbia University Law School scholarly paper, “Incest in Colonial Massachusetts: 1636-1710”:
Colonial Massachusetts maintained a civil government system that was separate from the Puritan church, and yet, because of the colonists’ strong Puritan beliefs, the church exercised enormous influence on the colonial government’s laws and policies. The result of this societal organization was the blurring of church and state; of crimes and sins. Incest is an example of an offense that was considered a crime because it was a sin. . . .
In the English system, religious ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction over marriage. Massachusetts broke with England, as marriage in colonial Massachusetts was a civil matter. While marriage was a civil matter in colonial Massachusetts, both existing English law and Puritan beliefs largely dictated what incestuous-marriage laws the civil government adopted. . . .
How colonial Massachusetts treated incest (in both its forms) was heavily influenced by Puritanism, which was a driving force in the establishment of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The colony relied on a theory of social covenant to demand that everyone “live righteously and according to God’s word.”1
Puritanism was founded on the idea that one’s “thoughts and deeds serve God.” Marriage was considered a form of “outward conduct”, and thus a way to serve God. And, because Massachusetts was founded by Puritans, the colonial government was serious about deciding who could marry whom, meaning they could regulate against incestuous marriages. Not surprising, those laws were influenced by scripture, as well as existing English law. . . .
[continued in article, purchase issue here]
The Potential Perils of DNA Testing
This particular “Oh, Dear!” scenario is a recent one, especially given the widespread use of DNA testing in genealogical research. Granted, some people sign up and take these tests, utilizing either a test tube of saliva or a cheek swab, just to find out what they assume will be fun facts, e.g., their ethnicity and ancient ancestral roots. You will find multiple instances of these types of results and many will never have started a family tree on sites like MyHeritage, Family Tree DNA or Ancestry.
Did they just want to know ethnicity, or did they find something disturbing and decided not to pursue it? Both are possibilities, but there are many stories of people who decide to plow ahead and uncover family secrets. A recent Reader’s Digest article highlights a few recent developments:
● Writing in MSN’s The Moneyist column, a man told the story that after years of receiving substantial monetary gifts from a wealthy uncle, a 23andMe DNA test revealed that he was actually the uncle’s biological son. The family secret was confirmed by the man’s mother, who had worked as the Chief Financial Officer for the company the “uncle” ran.
● When Alice Collins Plebuch decided to do a DNA test, she did it all in good fun. As originally reported by the Washington Post, the woman, who identified as Irish American, was shocked to find a mix of European Jewish, Middle Eastern, and Eastern European genes in her results. After family-wide DNA testing, she learned that her father was not the biological son of her grandparents. After even more digging, Plebuch finally got to the bottom of the story: Her father had been sent home with the wrong family. A mystery of over 100 years had been solved by a mail-in DNA test. . . .
Examples such as these can potentially be disturbing and heartbreaking, in some instances tearing a family apart with divorce. Whether or not an unexpected DNA result leads to such devastating consequences, many are seeking support from others who have discovered similar “family secrets”. One private Facebook group, DNA NPE (“Not Parent Expected”) Friends is one such entity which seeks to connect people whose lives have been changed after receiving their test results. . . .
[continued in article, purchase issue here]
Yet another “moral dilemma” of our rapidly changing world, is artificial insemination, aka “test tube baby”. For more discussion on this issue and to read the entire article, complete with more examples and resources, purchase the issue here.
Thanks for stopping by! For more stories like this one, consider subscribing to Digging History Magazine. Purchasing a subscription entitles you to subscriber benefits (20% off all services, including custom-designed family history charts) AND a chance to win your very own custom-designed family history chart! Details here (or click the ad below).
Footnotes: