Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of Lanca

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
JeffChipman

Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of Lanca

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 03 apr 2006 22:19:43

I have been reviewing a thread on the [soc.genealogy.medieval] website
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

pj.evans

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av pj.evans » 03 apr 2006 22:37:36

JeffChipman wrote:
I have been reviewing a thread on the [soc.genealogy.medieval] website
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.

[snip]
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

I have seen "daughter-in-law" used for a stepdaughter: the instance I
have in mind is Eleanor ( --- ) Randall of Rhode Island, whose mother
Elizabeth married (second) Nicholas Utter, as his second wife. In his
will he referred to Eleanor as his daughter-in-law. (To the best of my
knowledge her father has not been identified.)

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 apr 2006 22:58:15

JeffChipman schrieb:

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;
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.

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.

I cited recently the 1530 will of John Docwra, in which he refers to
his wife's step-father, Thomas Chicheley, as his "father-in-law". This
predates your Delaware example by more than two centuries. and thus
embraces the 1660-1674 time-frame of your instance of "son-in-law" of
which you seek to be so categorical. Unfortunately, we cannot always
be absolutely certain of many things - refusing to admit doubts can
lead to bad scholarship.

Renia

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Renia » 03 apr 2006 23:24:57

JeffChipman wrote:


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.

You should not confuse modern "customary meaning" with historical
customary meaning. The term "son-in-law" was used for "stepson" and for
"husband of daughter" or even for "husband of stepdaughter". In law, the
man was a son of the father, however he came by that right.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that "son-in-law", in this
instance, means what you hope it means, "husband of the daughter".

Renia

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 03 apr 2006 23:31:24

We have two responses here--one talks about Rhode Island and gives
nothing in the way of documentation or even a time frame (and sounds
pretty vague in other respects). The next talks about a 1530 english
will, pre-dating my situation by 150 years. Neither one of these
people give the slightest proof as to why the term would be used that
way in the Daniel Harrison example. Are they saying that the term
"sonne-in-law" never means "husband of my daughter"? How many times
would the term be used percentage wise in each meaning?
I'm not seeking to be categorial, I'm challenging the posters of posts
2 & 3 to demonstrate why the term son-in-law (which was never used to
describe Thomas Carter, husband of Katherine Dale) in this specific
case cannot be relied upon, especially when the chronology favors the
orthodox use of the term.
So where is your proof that the term "son-in-law" was used to describe
a "husband of my step-daughter" in this instance?
If you don't provide proof, then you're not only engaging in "bad
scholarship" yourself, you are casting an aspersion on someone's
genealogical research for cavalier reasons and don't actually have the
slightest idea why the term would be used as describing "husband of my
step-daughter" here. It's pretty easy to say, "well it could mean
this." I'm asking you to back it up, and you can't, evidently. You
cited two examples, one meaningless, and the other in the late medieval
period. Since you know how the terms (or so you say) were used in
those examples, I expect you to provide the same in this case. Let's
see it.
Jeff Chipman

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 03 apr 2006 23:37:08

No it isn't. You don't even know how often the term would be used in
each way, do you? I'm saying in the majority of the cases it would be
used in the orthodox fashion. Since I'm siding with the orthodox
interpretation, and since you have chosen to ignore the chronological
evidence (and after all, wasn't it chronology that casue Ward to bust
Katherine Dale's line?), I expect you to provide proof that it was
something else here. I will will be waiting a long time, because you
can't. You subscribe to the minority usage of the term, so let's see
why you think that's the way it is here.
Jeff Chipman

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 04 apr 2006 00:13:38

JeffChipman wrote:
No it isn't. You don't even know how often the term would be used in
each way, do you? I'm saying in the majority of the cases it would be
used in the orthodox fashion.

Based on . . . . . ? (I just read a book that began by stating that the
majority of all statistics are invented to favor the position being
argued.) A question of the number of times it was used for one form vs.
the other is hardly "iron-clad" evidence. I suspect it was more common
for daughter's husband than wife's son, just because, on average a
random person was more likely to have the former than the latter. This
is hardly probative, however. In the 17th century a daughter's husband
could be called son or son-in-law. A wife's son could be called son or
son-in-law. There is no ground for calling one of these usages
"orthodox", and hence default, and the other 'heterodox' and requiring
proof to even be considered.

Since I'm siding with the orthodox
interpretation,

The orthodox interpretation based on modern usage, not contemporary
usage, where its use for step-son was an orthodox interpretation.

and since you have chosen to ignore the chronological
evidence (and after all, wasn't it chronology that casue Ward to bust
Katherine Dale's line?), I expect you to provide proof that it was
something else here. I will will be waiting a long time, because you
can't. You subscribe to the minority usage of the term, so let's see
why you think that's the way it is here.

She is not subscribing to a "minority usage". She (and Nat Taylor
before her) is indicating that at the time in question there were
numerous possible usages. As long as the alternatives were, in fact, in
use at the time in question (which is, in fact, the case) then it is in
selecting a specific one (daughter's husband) in preference to the
others that proof is required, not in considering the lot of them
equally as possibilities.

taf

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 01:20:17

Todd--
Why don't you stop dancing around the questions, and just say, you
don't know? You don't know how often the term "son-in-law" meant
"husband of my step-daughter" vs "husband of my biological daughter,"
do you? You seem to think that because a term COULD have alternate
meanings (and I'm still waiting for examples from Tidewater VA late
1600s) a genealogist is required to take every one of them into account
no matter how remote and deal with them. You're implying that there
wasn't a more common use of the term, and I don't think that's true,
and you haven't cited anything to support that statement. C'mon, you
know that there are no birth records for VA in this period, so we have
to use other available records to determine ancestry, don't we?
Anybody with a thesaurus can come up with multiple meanings for
virtually any word; that doesn't stop us from using common sense,
right?

You say the term has numerous meanings. Can you can quantify that?
Would it be more than three? I'm not going to get into a discussion
about statistics, because I know of none on this topic, and I don't
think you do either.

You, and nobody else on this board, has yet offered a shred of evidence
why they think that "son-in-law" means "husband of my step-daughter" in
this case. Before you get a head of steam here, I would consider the
following:

Elizabeth Dale's husband, William Rogers, whom she pre-deceased, died
before 14 Apr 1714 when his second wife Mary, a widow, was granted
letters on his estate. It is known that all of Rogers' children were
by Elizabeth Dale because Mary Rogers left a will and named only her
children by her first husband.

On 11 Aug 1714 Elizabeth Banks petitioned the Lancaster Co. court,
saying that her brother William Rogers had died and left two small
children; she wanted the education for one of them, who were identified
as Joseph Rogers and George Rogers (she evidently did not think Mary
Rogers, the widow, would provide a "suitable education."). Even
allowing for the notion that "small" didn't necesarily mean infants,
here they're identified as not yet being of educable age. William
Rogers the second was the oldest child of William and Elizabeth, and
when he died in 1728 leaving 5 children he named George Rogers as his
brother. I simply cannot see how Elizabeth Dale could have been the
daughter of an earlier wife of Dale. The chronology is just not there.
I object to people trotting out theories and saying "well it could be
that way" and then demanding that these theories be researched when
there's no evidence that it's likely. We're going to get into the
silliness of the "warming pan baby" before long.

So, I want to see some proof that in this case "son-in-law" meant
"husband of my step-daughter." Is there a problem with that? I'm
going to hold your feet to the fire.

Jeff Chipman

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 01:42:31

In the above post I should have said that Joseph and George Rogers were
just entering educable age, not having yet received education; the
purpose of Elizabeth Banks' request was to provide for the education of
one of them.
Jeff Chipman

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 04 apr 2006 03:18:08

JeffChipman wrote:
Todd--
Why don't you stop dancing around the questions, and just say, you
don't know? You don't know how often the term "son-in-law" meant
"husband of my step-daughter" vs "husband of my biological daughter,"
do you?

And neither do you, as much as you bluff and bluster. That is not
stopping you from shifting the burden of proof to anyone else but you,
with your restrictive view.


You seem to think that because a term COULD have alternate
meanings (and I'm still waiting for examples from Tidewater VA late
1600s) a genealogist is required to take every one of them into account
no matter how remote and deal with them.

I don't know about 'no matter how remote', but when a term has multiple
possible definitions, then a genealogist IS required to take them into
account.

You're implying that there
wasn't a more common use of the term, and I don't think that's true,
and you haven't cited anything to support that statement.

You are the one arguing that 'it means what I want it to', in the face
of three people, all of whom have experience with the period in
question, telling you that such a view is an unwarrented simplification.

C'mon, you
know that there are no birth records for VA in this period, so we have
to use other available records to determine ancestry, don't we?

Yes, and we have to use them appropriately. Sometimes that even means,
heaven forbid, that we accept that we cannot distinguish between two
alternatives. The absence of records does not give free license to
choose the version you like best, then force others to provide evidence
if they don't think you have reached a justified conclusion.

Anybody with a thesaurus can come up with multiple meanings for
virtually any word; that doesn't stop us from using common sense,
right?

Common sense based on contemporary usage, not common sense based on
modern usage or 'this is what I want it to mean'.

You say the term has numerous meanings. Can you can quantify that?

Nat already suggested several. Step-son, daughter's husband,
step-daughter's husband, adopted son, adopted daughter's husband
immediately come to mind.

[a whole lot on Elizabeth Dale deleted]

Back to the original claim:

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.


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.

If you can make an independent argument that Elizabeth was daughter of
Diana based on chronology, then do so, but you cannot use this
son-in-law statement about Mary toward that end, nor can a chronological
argument regarding Elizabeth support your conclusion regarding Mary. If
this is "iron-clad" it is like the Monitor - a little bit of water over
the top and it is likely to end up at the bottom of the ocean.

taf

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 04:22:54

Todd--
What do you consider proof of the parent/s of a person during the
colonial period in VA? What kind of record would supply that
information that would satisfy you?

You know, somebody has the answers to these questions. Somebody knows
what the term "son-in-law" commonly meant in that time. Are you saying
that because a term has more than one use every single one of those
meanings has to be diligently researched? There is no way to
prioritize the various meanings? I can unequivically state that there
is no proof (or for that matter, evidence of any kind known to me, or
that has been presented here or anywhere else) that Mary Harrison was
not the daughter of Diana Skipwith. That is not the case with
Katherine Carter. Let's not dissemble. You have supplied exactly
nothing to support your thesis in the case of Mary Harrison, and that's
unacceptable. Are you suggesting everybody stop dead in their tracks
because a word has more than one meaning?

It is an absolute fact that "sonne in law" during this period could
mean "husband of my biological daughter," is that not true? So.. is it
more likley that she was the daughter of Diana Skipwith, or is it less
likely? Or do you even consider that irrelevant?
Are you willy nilly throwing every VA pedigree of this period using
that term into a basket labelled unproven? You don't think it matters
what the most common meaning of the term is?

I don't think you know anything about these people. You're defending a
flip remark Nat Taylor made to Joan Burdyck and I'm going to make you
provide some scholarship on the subject.

I am saying that the most common usage of the term "son-in-law" is to
mean "husband of my biological daughter." I can tell you that the most
common reason of death for women in that place and time was from
complications in child-birth.

So, where is your evidence that shows the frequency of the various
meanings of " son-in-law?" When you get right down to it, you're just
asking me to take your word on faith. Right? You haven't cited an
article, much less a study. You haven't cited anything. You gleaned
this fact from somewhere. I want to know the source. I am asking you
for your authority for this topic, and I expect you to supply one. If
it's your own work, then tell me where I can find it. If it's somebody
else's, give a citation. Otherwise, you're just a poseur, aren't you?

Jeff Chipman

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 07:35:34

JeffChipman schrieb:

Todd--
What do you consider proof of the parent/s of a person during the
colonial period in VA? What kind of record would supply that
information that would satisfy you?

So, where is your evidence that shows the frequency of the various
meanings of " son-in-law?" When you get right down to it, you're just
asking me to take your word on faith. Right? You haven't cited an
article, much less a study. You haven't cited anything. You gleaned
this fact from somewhere. I want to know the source. I am asking you
for your authority for this topic, and I expect you to supply one. If
it's your own work, then tell me where I can find it. If it's somebody
else's, give a citation. Otherwise, you're just a poseur, aren't you?

The problem is, as you have demonstrated elsewhere, that when someone
does furnish you with a detailed citation, you write it off with the
explanation that (1) it is not from Virginia in 1660 and/or (2) the
person providing it does not understand the Dale family (as if that is
somehow relevant). You demonstrated in your earlier round of postings
that you have an uncanny knack for hitting upon an unfounded idea, and
refusing to be shifted. Already, you have resorted to referring to
those who have taken the trouble to respond to you as "poseurs" and the
facts they have provided as "BS". None of this is indicative of
reasonable scholarship. If you are unwilling or unable to learn, and
already know all the answers, why are you posting here?

MA-R

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 04 apr 2006 10:52:36

JeffChipman wrote:

I can unequivically state that there
is no proof (or for that matter, evidence of any kind known to me, or
that has been presented here or anywhere else) that Mary Harrison was
not the daughter of Diana Skipwith.

Is this what it has come to now? A 'no proof against' standard?

That is not the case with
Katherine Carter. Let's not dissemble. You have supplied exactly
nothing to support your thesis in the case of Mary Harrison, and that's
unacceptable. Are you suggesting everybody stop dead in their tracks
because a word has more than one meaning?

If the evidence is ambiguous, then damn straight, you should stop in
your tracks. I have seen this argument before - we can't let niggling
things like lack of proof get in the way of the Manifest Genealogical
Destiny. Conclusions must be jumped and sources massaged, because we
can't stop 'progress' over something as insignificant as insufficient
evidence! Onward and Backward!! Once More into the Breach!!! Tally Ho!!!!

As you are consistently missing the point, let me try an analogy:

You find a document written in America in 2005, in which John Smith
refers to his "uncle" Bill Johnson. Now in modern American English,
"uncle" can mean father's brother, father's sister's husband, mother's
brother, mother's sister's husband, someone holding a similar
relationship a generation back, or even a close male family friend with
no genealogical relationship. It is completely unwarranted to
arbitrarily pick one of these and say "this is what it must mean, and
anyone who thinks it means one of the other possibilities must present
evidence", when you had none for your selection. You can demand
statistics for how frequently "uncle" refers to each of these
relationships, but the true relationship intended by such a relational
statement cannot be determined from these statistics.

It is an absolute fact that "sonne in law" during this period could
mean "husband of my biological daughter," is that not true?

Yes, and it is also a fact that it could mean one of a number of other
possibilities.

So.. is it
more likley that she was the daughter of Diana Skipwith, or is it less
likely?

More likely than what? less likely than what? Relative likelihood
statements are meaningless without defining the dichotomy.

If you mean more likely than if Diana did not call Mary's husband
"son-in-law", yes, but it is also more likely that he was
step-son-in-law than if she had not referred to him as such (and also
more likely that he was step-son, and all of the other meanings of the
word).

I don't think you know anything about these people. You're defending a
flip remark Nat Taylor made

I am suggesting that you actually pay some attention to a _true_ remark
that Nat Taylor made.

to Joan Burdyck and I'm going to make you
provide some scholarship on the subject.

I am saying that the most common usage of the term "son-in-law" is to
mean "husband of my biological daughter."

And you are basing this on your research? You have extensively studied
the use of the term? Oh, no. I forgot. You are going to make _us_
provide that scholarship. You have drawn your conclusion without the
need of scholarship - it is only those who disagree with you that need
to base their conclusions on evidence.

I can tell you that the most
common reason of death for women in that place and time was from
complications in child-birth.

Umm, relevance? Oh, I see, the most common cause of death was
childbirth, so if any woman died, it must have been from childbirth
unless someone else can prove otherwise. It doesn't matter if women
also died of disease, having their dresses catch fire, being attacked by
Indians, etc. - if there is no evidence, it must have been childbirth,
right? Is that your point? because that is exactly the kind of
fallacious argument you are trying to make with the use of the term
"son-in-law".


So, where is your evidence that shows the frequency of the various
meanings of " son-in-law?"

Where is yours? And while you are at it, provide the justification for
reaching "iron-clad" genealogical conclusions based on 'more likely' use
of relational statements.

That whole long post of yours, and we are right back where we started -
you arguing that Mary was daughter and not step-daughter, not because of
any evidence on your behalf, but because of a 'no proof against'
argument, of the type which which went out of fashion in scholarly
genealogy in the late 19th century.

taf

Renia

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Renia » 04 apr 2006 11:01:39

JeffChipman wrote:

We have two responses here--one talks about Rhode Island and gives
nothing in the way of documentation or even a time frame (and sounds
pretty vague in other respects). The next talks about a 1530 english
will, pre-dating my situation by 150 years. Neither one of these
people give the slightest proof as to why the term would be used that
way in the Daniel Harrison example. Are they saying that the term
"sonne-in-law" never means "husband of my daughter"? How many times
would the term be used percentage wise in each meaning?
I'm not seeking to be categorial, I'm challenging the posters of posts
2 & 3 to demonstrate why the term son-in-law (which was never used to
describe Thomas Carter, husband of Katherine Dale) in this specific
case cannot be relied upon, especially when the chronology favors the
orthodox use of the term.
So where is your proof that the term "son-in-law" was used to describe
a "husband of my step-daughter" in this instance?

There is no proof. There is no proof of the meaning of the term in this
situation. There will never be proof until and unless you find other
documentation which corroborates it either way. That's genealogy.
Frustrating, isn't it?


If you don't provide proof, then you're not only engaging in "bad
scholarship" yourself, you are casting an aspersion on someone's
genealogical research for cavalier reasons and don't actually have the
slightest idea why the term would be used as describing "husband of my
step-daughter" here. It's pretty easy to say, "well it could mean
this." I'm asking you to back it up, and you can't, evidently. You
cited two examples, one meaningless, and the other in the late medieval
period. Since you know how the terms (or so you say) were used in
those examples, I expect you to provide the same in this case. Let's
see it.
Jeff Chipman

Renia

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Renia » 04 apr 2006 11:24:23

JeffChipman wrote:

In the above post I should have said that Joseph and George Rogers were
just entering educable age, not having yet received education; the
purpose of Elizabeth Banks' request was to provide for the education of
one of them.
Jeff Chipman

You say Joseph and George Rogers were "entering educable age" in 1714
and you referred earlier to them being "small children". So they were
about 5 years old or so, rather than teenagers or pre-teens waiting to
go to "senior school".

You are also categorical they were the children of Elizabeth Rogers nee
Dale, who was dead before 1714 and was superceded by a second wife of
William Rogers, called Mary.

I have not researched this family so know little about it (except that
all the names you mention are Yorkshire names), but it strikes me that
these two "small children" would have been born around 1710, or thereabouts.

If so, then Elizabeth Rogers was (statistically) born around 1670-80,
which is a generation after Diana Skipwith married Edward Dale.
Chronologically, on face value, it seems unlikely Elizabeth was the
daughter of Diana Skipwith Dale.

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 13:42:04

JeffChipman wrote:

Elizabeth Dale's husband, William Rogers, whom she pre-deceased, died
before 14 Apr 1714 when his second wife Mary, a widow, was granted
letters on his estate. It is known that all of Rogers' children were
by Elizabeth Dale because Mary Rogers left a will and named only her
children by her first husband.

The fact that Mary Rogers left a will naming only her children of her
first husband may be pretty good evidence that she left no issue by her
second marriage, but it is not proof.

Proof would be, for instance, a statement by her in her will that all
of her children were by her first marriage. I am sure many posters
could offer details of cases where children have been omitted from
wills by their parents for a variety of reasons - e.g. their
maintenance or inheritance was due to be forthcoming from a different
source (another relative, a copyhold property etc).

It can be difficult to accept these grey areas and deal with
probabilities instead of certainties in historical genealogy, but
that's the way it is. Failure to admit this reality precludes one from
being taken seriously as a researcher.

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 14:13:01

Renia writes:

JeffChipman wrote:
How many times
would the term be used percentage wise in each meaning?
I'm not seeking to be categorial, I'm challenging the posters of posts
2 & 3 to demonstrate why the term son-in-law (which was never used to
describe Thomas Carter, husband of Katherine Dale) in this specific
case cannot be relied upon, especially when the chronology favors the
orthodox use of the term.
So where is your proof that the term "son-in-law" was used to describe
a "husband of my step-daughter" in this instance?

There is no proof. There is no proof of the meaning of the term in this
situation. There will never be proof until and unless you find other
documentation which corroborates it either way.

I have learnt never to take relationships stated in 16th and 17th century
wills as true without collaborating evidence - daughter being actually
daughter-in-law, brother actually a cousin, muddling names of children and
their spouses. Many of these wills were written within days of death when
the testator, although claiming to be of sound mind probably was not, and
often written down by someone who may not know the family relationships and
so could not correct them.

I'm lucky in having such a rare name that a one-name study is feasible and
that reveals many such anomalies

"Probably true and no counterexample yet found" is not a proof, the Clay
Maths Institute is not going to hand over $1 million for proving the Riemann
hypothesis on that sort of claim

cheers

Simon

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 16:21:29

That's not true. This isn't a gray area. Mary Rogers named her
children in her will and they ALL bore the surname of her first
husband. Why would there have been any necessity of stating they were
by her first husband? If she had any by Rogers they would have been
surnamed Rogers. It turns out that there are many records on the
Rogers children and they were the subject of a journal article by
Carlton Lee Hudson in "The Virginia Genealogist" (pub. by Dorman) and a
book by John Frederick Dorman. Neither of those men found a shred of
evidence to support your theory.

I think you're trying to mislead the public that there's some merit in
your position. Do you take Dorman and Hudson as serious researchers?
Dorman alone is an eminent man in the field of VA genealogy, and I
would venture to say, an expert in VA genealogy. I think I will take
his opinion over yours, if that's alright with you.

But it's not necessary to cite Dorman and Hudson. "Many posters" isn't
proof of anything. I will expect in your next post, if there is one,
the evidence you are using that will refute Hudson and Dorman (who,
btw, did not deal with Katherine Dale) You can do that, right?

JTC

JeffChipman

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 04 apr 2006 16:50:25

Look--
The fact is that the Rogers children were covered in depth in an
article in "The Virginia Genealogist" by Hudson and in a book on the
Farish family by Dorman. Both treatments were carefully documented.
Dorman is a FASG. There aren't any "smoking" guns here. Before
rendering an opinion on a a given case, I expect the person commenting
to have at least surveyed the literature on the family, and that hasn't
happened here. None of you know anything about this family, do you?

Are you telling me that the experience of "many posters" is proof of
anything? It may be evidence, but it's evidence of an anecdotal sort.
How could I verify the statement? What I want are verifiable examples
that "son in law" was sometimes used to mean "husband of my
step-daughter." Is that a problem? The key here is "verifiable."
That means that anyone reading the material can go to the source and
evaluate the conclusions. If the evidence is really nothing more than
an informal opinion by somebody, it's evidence, but probably isn't
going to be given as much weight as other kinds of evidence. Anybody
who is confused about what evidence is needs to consult a genealogical
manual. The problem we have here is that to date nobody has offered a
single case concerning alternative meanings of "son in law" as it
applies to this case or any other.

Tidewater VA is not Plymouth. As "Albion's Seed" amply shows, the
immigrants to VA had different cultural values than the Puritans. I
expect any example offered to address this fact and cite an actual
record from 17th century VA that illustrates their position.

I object to posts as above which in truth rest on nothing but the
poster's personal opinion. The fact that so far no one has offered a
single proven example of "son in law" meaning "husband of my
step-daughter" to me means that there probably aren't any, and this is
just posturing. I don't need to be told in a patronizing fashion what
is "difficult to accept." I am telling you that unless you can provide
some examples here (and you have not), I think you are misleading the
reader, and I'm going to hold you accountable for it.

JTC

And while we're on the subject, I located the Rutman book.

Gjest

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 16:57:06

JeffChipman wrote:
That's not true. This isn't a gray area. Mary Rogers named her
children in her will and they ALL bore the surname of her first
husband. Why would there have been any necessity of stating they were
by her first husband? If she had any by Rogers they would have been
surnamed Rogers.

Please read my post again - your reply, as usual, does not address the
issue I raised. I did not suggest that the children named in Mary
Rogers's will could have been by either of her two marriages; I said
that they were not necessarily the exhaustive set of her children;
there could have been others, e.g. by a second marriage, in addition to
those named in her will. NB I'm not saying that is likely, or
advancing a theory; I'm simply saying - as other posters here have -
that strong evidence is not the same as proof, as you would have it.
I think you're trying to mislead the public that there's some merit in
your position.

I'm not trying to mislead anyone; I'm trying to help you see reason,
just like the last round of polemic posts where you got the wrong idea
about marks of cadency in late mediaeval heraldry and refused to
consider that you might have cocked up.

Do you take Dorman and Hudson as serious researchers?
Dorman alone is an eminent man in the field of VA genealogy, and I
would venture to say, an expert in VA genealogy. I think I will take
his opinion over yours, if that's alright with you.

Fine by me; I am not disputing Dorman and Hudson, I am gently taking
issue with your inability to distinguish between likelihood and proof.

But it's not necessary to cite Dorman and Hudson. "Many posters" isn't
proof of anything. I will expect in your next post, if there is one,
the evidence you are using that will refute Hudson and Dorman (who,
btw, did not deal with Katherine Dale) You can do that, right?

I am not sure why you feel the need to be so aggressive and accusatory,
apart from the inherent weakness of your position. As a matter of
fact, I am rapidly coming to the realisation that replying to your
posts (in an attempt to assist you) is a waste of everyone's time, as
you already know all the answers and are unable to see any other point
of view. Please feel free to keep on making a fool of yourself on your
own.

Regards

Michael

Vickie Elam White

Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale, wife of William Rogers of L

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 07 apr 2006 18:46:14

Forgive me if this has been discussed already, but I'm just now
getting into this most recent discussion of Elizabeth Dale, and
there's a lot to cover!

Elizabeth was a sponsor of the 1672 baptism of Thomas Carter Jr.
in Lancaster Co. VA -

"Baptzd att the new Church agt 5th (Christ Church). Captn John
Lee, Mr. Th. Hayne, the Lady Ann Skipwith and Eliza Dale
godparts. [godparents]" See the Carter prayerbook at
http://www.rootsweb.com/~valancas/prayer.html


Am I correct in assuming that godparents had to be at least 14 in
the Anglican Church of that time? Does anyone know for sure?
Anyway, that would make her birthdate no later than 1658,
probably earlier.


Vickie Elam White


"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144099183.492640.61690@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...

snip

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.


snip

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»