entitled : "Diana Skipwith/Major Edward Dale;" the first post was made
10 Jan 2001 by Joan Burdyck, and the last on 17 Jan 2001 by Douglas
Richardson. The article discussed a number of issues surrounding a TAG
article by Charles Martin Ward (of which I have a copy) disputing the
claim of royal ancestry for Katherine (Dale) Carter, dau. of Major
Edward Dale of Lancaster Co., VA; she was b. in 1652 and m. in 1670.
Mr. Ward was very good at raising a number of questions, and not very
good at answering them. But I do think he proved that Katherine (Dale)
Carter was not the dau. of Dale's wife Diana Skipwith. Those interested
in Ward's article should seek it out; I am not going to reprise his
arguments here.
The immediate cause of the thread was a "power of attorney clause" to a
1674 deed in which Edward Dale conveyed 500 acres of land to Thomas
Carter [husband of Katherine Dale]; the "power of attorney" was made by
Diana (Skipwith) on 8 Dec 1674 granted power of attorney to Daniel
Harrison, "my sonne in law."
From Lancaster Co. probate records [and I'm not going to repeat
Burdyck's reasearch], we know that Daniel Harrison died in 1677 and was
the husband of Mary Dale, proving Ward's suggestion that Mary Dale was
indeed Edward Dale's daughter.
While Douglas Richardson welcomed the deed as long awaited proof of the
maternity of the Dale sisters, Nathaniel Taylor opined that calling
Harrison Diana Dale's son-in-law didn't necessarily mean that Mary Dale
was her daughter, and that the term admitted of various uses during
this time period. I agree with him that Diana Dale would not have used
her maiden name after marriage (after all, she was not an heiress);
however, he produced no proof that the term "son-in-law" was used to
denote the husband of a step-daughter in this case, or for that matter,
in any case. "Albion's Seed" is silent on this point to my knowledge.
I followed posts to [soc.genealogy.medieval] regularly, and there are
frequent discussions of what various terms mean in different eras. I'm
sure this is very scholarly, but I have the impression that even if a
man is termed "son" in some document, the usage will be contested by
somebody.
I regard Diana Dale's use of the term "son-in-law" as ironclad proof
that Mary Dale was her daughter, and thus Elizabeth Dale, who was the
youngest daughter, was also Diana's.
Charles Martin Ward was not the first to note the existence of the two
deeds he cites as evidence that Katherine Dale was not Diana's child.
Jay Berry Price (whose book is familiar to Douglas Richardson) in "The
Price, Blakemore, Hamblen, Skipwith and Allied Lines" notes the same
deeds on pg. 42.
Charles Martin Ward did not mention Elizabeth Dale in his article.
The intitial ID of Elizabeth Dale as Diana Dale's daughter did not rest
upon the above quoted deed of conveyance, which was unknown at the
time. There are mentions of Elizabeth both as a single and married
woman in the Thomas Carter prayerbook in connection with the
christening of Carter's children, but these are of historical interest
only.
On 12 Mar 1677/8 Edward Dale conveyed 500 acres to his daughter
Elizabeth who was then the wife of William Rogers, gent. Since we know
that Katherine Dale was 18 when she married Carter, if her sister was
of the same age at marriage and this was (as is likely) a marriage
gift, that would put Elizabeth's birthyear as 1659/60. Diana Skipwith
was definitely married to Dale by 1660. I feel that while Elizabeth
might have been younger than 18 at marriage, it is doubtful she was
older.
Elizabeth Dale had a number of children who are documented in various
public records; the oldest was born ca. 1680 and the youngest known ca.
1704. For chronological reasons it is very probable Elizabeth Dale was
younger than 18 at marriage.
I am weary of debates over what meanings are ascribed to various terms.
I know of one case in my family in which a step-son called himself a
"son-in-law;" this was in Delaware in 1789. I have never seen the term
used as Mr. Taylor alleges in the colonial period (and I have done a
fair amount of colonial research), but I'm sure he has some examples.
The burden of proof should be on the person claiming that a stock term
means something other than its customary meaning in a given situation.
In other words, what proof does Mr. Taylor have that the term was used
to denote the husband of a step-daugther in this instance? For
chronological reasons I feel a birthdate of 1660 or later for Elizabeth
(Dale) Rogers is correct. I don't think there's any doubt that she was
Skipwith's daughter. We have reached the point where nothing means
anything, and we can have no confidence in the normal use use of a
term. I am not saying that it doesn't happen, but since Nat Taylor says
that "son-in-law" can mean a variety of things, I challenge him to
produce proof that it has something other than the usual and customary
meaning here, and to provide sources. In fact, he really didn't cite
anything to back up his claim, he just said "2) son-in-law admits of
various uses in this period, and could extend to step-children and
their spouses as well." Having made injudicious assertions myself, I
think that anyone posting to this thread should likewise have to back
up their claim. Let's see it.
Jeff Chipman