Ship of Fools: Mad at the dead

Thread: Mad at the dead Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025515

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Has anyone heard or learned of something years after a parent has died, that seems more than reasonable that they should have known about? Like the existence of a child born before the marriage and adopted out. The adoption in this case was nearly 60 years ago, and the parents both are dead 5 and 6 years ago. It was never mentioned, no sniff, no whiff that this had ever happened. Nothing. The info came forth in a email via a third party and confirmed with the provincial adoptions agency. Does anger at the dead parents for never ever revealing this seem reasonable?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Certainly it's reasonable -- and understandable. We don't stop having relationships with people who played major roles in forming us just because they happen to have died. I'm ticked off at my mother for various stunts she pulled, and she's been gone for several years.

IMO, while what the parents you're talking about might have been understandable from their generation's PoV, the nature of the secret and the back-door revelation necessitated by that secret's having been kept, are more than justifiable causes for outrage.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Not to do with other children, no.

But serious issues to do with parents after their death - yes, with both parents.

Yes it caused anger and upset but to my siblings rather than me - by the time they both died I'd reached the stage where nothing to do with either parent would have surprised me.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Sounds normal. You don't stop loving people becsuse they're dead, why should you not be angry at them too?

Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :

Yes to both your questions. For some perspective on the spiritual aspects of the issues for the living, and tools for healing see 'Healing Death's Wounds' by Russ Parker and Michael Mitton' and 'Healing the Family Tree' by Kenneth McAll.

Your parents actions in those circumstances would likely have been what was advised by the professionals at the time and the norm. That doesn't mean they didn't feel all the expected emotions of love,loss and grief for this child.

I know someone who was sent away to a country hospital in early pregnancy to have her baby at sixteen and never saw him after the birth, he was taken away for adoption. It was her secret until much later in life, maybe her fifties/sixties that she was able to make contact with the adult child, and be open about his existence. And this was quite recent.

But now you know you will have a lot of your own emotions to work through including anger and all these emotions are valid and reasonable. Eventually compassion, forgiveness and love is the place you need to get to. But allow whatever time is needed to get there. It is like a grieving process.

I speak from experience in similar but not identical circumstances. (No, I am not my friend, that is a different situation) I mention it to show how common it was in those days.

[Votive]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Has anyone heard or learned of something years after a parent has died, that seems more than reasonable that they should have known about?

Welcome to my family! More secrets than the flaming KGB. Most people visit the graves of their departed relatives to leave flowers. I go to shout at them*. And yes, it is reasonable.

*(The dead, not the flowers. Shouting at flowers wouldn't be reasonable.)

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Only further back in the family's history - I bet everyone has skeletons in the closet if you go back far enough. The difference is that the effect is not so raw if it is more than one generation ago (although it makes you realise what a precarious science genealogy is).

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Looks like we need to be mad at some of the living as well. Turns out that at least some of the cousins have known for at least a few decades. Happenstance has it that there was a planned 'get together on Sat eve because some are travelling in from Ontario. I think it will be better to try listening our way into trouble if possible versus the usually talking our way in. This hurts more because it is the 'good side' of our family. My family has been so totally bashed up since WW2, and continuing to screw it that stupidity is expectable and no biggie, but not the well-loved and "good family" I married into, which this is.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

It's worth keeping in mind that what was absolutely scandalous for one generation -- Stuff Which Must Be Kept Under The Rug At all Costs -- is often no big deal for the generation which follows, or the one after that.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

Yes, your anger is understandable.

I'm adopted - happily so - and traced my birth mother when I was 34. (I'm 50 now). Best decision I ever made. My mother had told her partner about the baby she had to give up, but not my bio siblings. They coped with it very well when I made contact, and I have a good relationship with them.

Adoption 50-60 years ago was a closed affair. Social attitudes were very different. Even young couples engaged to be married were pressured to give up babies for adoption if the girl got pregnant.

I don't know the backstory or circs involved here, obviously, but you have every right to know who your bio sibling is, just as they have a right to trace you and their birth relatives.

There is a lot of sadness in this.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

My grandparents fudged the date of my aunt's birth by a couple of weeks so it wouldn't be less than nine months from their wedding. She found this out after her mother was dead, though her father was alive. He would never talk about it though. I don't know if it angered her, but it was certainly a mind blowing discovery to make.

Edited to add, I certainly wouldn't blame her if she was angry about it, and I wouldn't blame anyone who made a similar discovery.

[ 04. May 2013, 00:07: Message edited by: Nicolemr ]

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :

I suspect that every family has a skeleton of this sort in its cupboard. My paternal grandmother was near the younger end of a family of 11, and one of her older sisters had a baby "out of wedlock" as they called it in those days. The baby was brought up as Granny's sister (I think they were quite close in age), and as I understand it the mother subsequently married the baby's father and emigrated to Australia*, but her daughter stayed in the UK.

My father knew her as his aunt, and says that he was a young man before anyone told him that she was actually his cousin. I don't think it bothered him; people didn't tell children things like that in those days.

* where they went on to found the Australian branch that seems to be a part of every British family tree. [Big Grin]

Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :

My dad died just over two years ago, and six months ago his ex-girlfriend from before he married my mother turned up to tell me I have a half-sister 5 1/2 years older than me who was born within a few days of my parents' marriage. The ex had to go to court to get my dad to put his name on the birth certificate. It's probably one of the main reasons why they left the UK before I was born.

My dad sent money to her until she was 20, and because of the abysmal exchange rate between the Canadian dollar and the British pound what seemed like a derisory amount to her made a serious dent in our family's finances, which was why we were chronically short of money growing up. My mum knew about her from the beginning but never told us either.

I don't know if I'm angry. There doesn't seem a lot of point, but that may be more of a reflection of where I am with the grieving process over my dad's death. People are people, and always have more personality twists and turns than you'd expect. The older I get, the more I realise that, and so I guess I feel that there's no point being angry about a past that can't be changed, and especially a past I didn't know about. All I can do is work on the future. Sorry if that sounds like a cliché!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Panda:
I guess I feel that there's no point being angry about a past that can't be changed, and especially a past I didn't know about. All I can do is work on the future. Sorry if that sounds like a cliché!

Not a cliché, but a shedload of common sense...

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

There are explanations now for the circumstances of the pregnancy and the lack of disclosure, some of which hold a wee bit of credibility. The best explanation seems to be that people didn't like to talk of 'such things' in those days, and then 'how do you talk about them later when you never have'. Mostly a crock, but a somewhat understandable crock filled with things that are of questionable freshness and wholesomeness and some rotten bits; the end of illusions having confronted us now for quite a while, with so much other bad things these past few short years. Do wonder if there are any bits of hopefulness about people and family, except those that personally involve yourself personally and a very few others, such as spouse and children. And the dog and cat.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0