So you discover....

[Hilldodger]

....that one of the great Victorian cycle champions was a bigamist and not such a nice chap, as many people believe.

I'm in contact with his family from the second marriage...would you tell them the truth?

 

[BigonaBianchi]

Might be a laugh

 

[vernon]

....that one of the great Victorian cycle champions was a bigamist and not such a nice chap, as many people believe.

I'm in contact with his family from the second marriage...would you tell them the truth?

Do you see it as your duty to disabuse them of any notion that he was a nice man?

Would you like to be told that the great grandparent that you'd placed on a pedestal was good for nothing disloyal scuzzer?

Are his non-cycling activities relevant to his greatness as a cycle champion?

If you have two affirmative answers go ahead and tell them.

 

[yello]

Nah, let it be 'dodger.

 

[Hilldodger]

Are his non-cycling activities relevant to his greatness as a cycle champion?

Some of what I've found our relates to his cycling career

 

[beanzontoast]

A lot depends on how certain you are of what you've discovered. Is it empirically provable as 'true'? Are you sure that this information hasn't been unearthed before? Is it really down to you to make these things known?

Family histories are intensely personal things. My 2p worth (for what it's worth) - think about the damage that may be caused before you do anything.

 

[Hilldodger]

That's the problem I have, I'm as sure as I can be the racing stuff is true and there is NO doubt about him being a bigamist.

The racing stuff, well, the sport wasn't very clean back then and it won't change anything even if it did come out. People may well have had knowledge of it back then and it has just been forgotten about over the years, so I'll probably just let it lie.

The family have asked me for any information I have on him - I'm just wondering about telling them where the archive is and let them make their own conclusions.

 

[Dayvo]

I think it's best to let sleeping dogs lie!

 

[vernon]

That's the problem I have, I'm as sure as I can be the racing stuff is true and there is NO doubt about him being a bigamist.

The racing stuff, well, the sport wasn't very clean back then and it won't change anything even if it did come out. People may well have had knowledge of it back then and it has just been forgotten about over the years, so I'll probably just let it lie.

The family have asked me for any information I have on him - I'm just wondering about telling them where the archive is and let them make their own conclusions.

What is wrong with being economical with the facts?

 

[Hilldodger]

(I assume he had a beard)

No, he didn't. Well, not in any of the photo's I've seen.

 

[wafflycat]

The family have asked me for any information I have on him - I'm just wondering about telling them where the archive is and let them make their own conclusions.

If they've asked for the information, then that's the most honest thing to do. Every family has people & facts in its history that are less than perfect.

 

[yello]

Every family has people & facts in its history that are less than perfect.

Indeed, but who is anyone to remind them of it?

I think, if 'dodger feels obliged to, then his suggestion of pointing them to the archive - perhaps with a warning - and letting them discover for themselves is the approach to take.

Personally, as I said before, I'd let it be. For precisely the reason that all families have history.

 

[rh100]

I've been in a similar dilemma, and it's a difficult one. Just remember that the people involved in the original story made there own paths, it's not for us to police who can or can't see the facts once unearthed. But you obviously don't want to cause upset, or ram the info down peoples throats, but if the person in question was a Victorian, then how close is anyone to really get upset? More likely they will be fascinated, but you never know as it's down to individuals how they react. Maybe best bet is to advise that there is info that may be distressing but leave it up to them if they want a copy? A can of worms it certainly can be

 

[Hilldodger]

Thanks everyone. I have suggested they contact the archivist of the collection where I found much of the information (after having spoken to him first). He has experience of dealing with similar situations.

 

[WeeE]

Maybe a bit late to comment - but it helps to put things in the social context of the time, where getting divorced was not only expensive but an ordeal and a huge social stigma - you basically had to go to court and accuse your spouse of horrendous cruelty or adultery - and name the third party. It stigmatised the kids, too.

19thC bigamy was more common than we tend to think, for those reasons, rather than plain deception. Quite often, not only did the second spouse know of the first, the first spouse knew about (or even knew) the second. Going through another wedding was sometimes the only way to embark on a normal post-(non)-divorce life without your younger kids being stigmatised as bastards (and possibly removed from their mother). Often the bigamist's siblings and parents were also in the know.

Maybe putting it in that sort of context if/when you explain it to the family (families?) might make it less shocking to them.