When facts that you know are accurate but don't make sense, is it right to surmise a probable reason!
I have proven facts concerning, when children were born out of wedlock and marriage at a later point between the parents. It was a very big surprise to find this out, as all other evidence supports that not only were they decent folk but also very religious.. So this would totally go against the grain of their personal beliefs and that of their families etc...
So I've used the evidence that I have and factors of the era they lived in, to create several plausible explanation why, with total acknowledgement that these are a mere possible explanations and aren't to be considered as facts, but a point of discussions to a 'may' as the true answer will never be known.
It has been suggested that I shouldn't be doing this, but just keep to the facts that are proven... Which I've done on the main family tree proven facts only, but included this side of things as a separate area of information..
But am I right or wrong?