Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
JeffChipman
Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
"Albion's Seed," by David Hackett Fischer (1989,Oxford Univ. Press) is
an excellent work which should be required reading for anyone working
with colonial records. Although the book doesn't address the term
"son-in-law," it does offer some insight into the family structure of
17th century VA.
It states on pg 370-1 that the season of marriage in VA was determined
by the Anglican calendar and the crop cycle and fell in the period
between Christmas and Ash Wednesday. Few married during Lent due to
Anglican restrictions. The marriage period was highly stable from the
mid 17th to late 18th centuries. More babies were conceived in May,
June and July than at other times.
On pgs 276-7, Fischer makes some interesting comments about the family
structure in VA: the southern colonies had higher rates of illness and
death; children died young, as did marriage partners. In Tidewater VA
during the 17th century, more than three quarters of children lost a
parent before reaching the age of 18. Other kin were important.
According to Darrett and Anita Rutman, in just about any household one
might find orphans, half-brothers, step-brothers and step-sisters and
wards of all ages. The father figure in the house might be an uncle or
brother; the female a "now wife".
The above is well supported by the structure of the Rogers family after
the father died as I indicated in another thread.
The Rutmans also penned an article entitled "Now-Wives and Sons-in-Law"
which appeared in "The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century." I have
not read this article; I am citing it to show there has been literature
on the subject which predates 1989.
I do not want to accept a statement about the meaning of an important
term like "sonne in law" simply on somebody's own authority or
reputation, unless it is backed up by something they have written or
compiled, or by reference to something somebody else has written. It
seems to me that in a land transaction for legal reasons people would
want to be as clear as possible. Frankly, if the person were merely
"husband of my step-daughter," I don't see the purpose of stating a
relationship at all, but it does matter how the term was used in
specific situations as the more common meaning would be the "probable"
relationship. If a meaning is seldom used, I will note it but it's not
going to be a priority for me. In this instance, nobody has cited
anything but a personal opinion, and that trivializes such statements
and is an unfair aspersion on the work of others. It's worth noting
that Douglas Richardson accepts Diana Skipwith as the mother of all
three Dale daughters, and shows Mary Dale to be the middle daughter as
do I. I do not agree in the case of Katherine Carter, but that's not
germane to my argument.
If we are to ascribe a meaning to a term, it seems to me that we should
care why it was used the way it was in a given situation. Did one
family as opposed to others favor a broader use of the term? Did
different communities? What were the legal implications for using the
term in a specific way in a given document, particularly in those days
when land patents were often found to be defective and had to be
re-patented (I know this happened and it did happen to my ancestor
William Rogers even though Dale gave him the land gratis)? Is anybody
denying the fact that "sonne in law" could mean "husband of my
bilogical daughter" during this period? Would these various meanings
be more commonly used in certain situations?
Simply rattling off some usages of a term doesn't answer these
questions, and as I noted above, somebody apparently thought it was
worth an article.
In this case, there is no evidence, unlike Katherine Carter, that Mary
Harrison was not the daughter of Skipwith. Skipwith never used the
term "sonne in law" to describe Thomas Carter, even though his dealings
with the Dales were much more extensive than Harrison or Rogers'. The
only time she ever used the term was in the form of a power of attorney
to relinquish her dower in the conveyance of land to Thomas and
Katherine Carter. In fact, Diana Dale never stated any sort of
relationship to Thomas Carter or Katherine Dale in that deed or any
other document.
So, I want to see proof that "sonne in law" meant "husband of my
step-daughter," during this period. This could take the form of
journal article or a compilation of somebody's notes, etc. So far
nobody's produced any except me, and I haven't read the above article.
There were a couple of instances of "in-law" usage in the posts, but
none dealing with this specific situation. Since we know Harrison
wasn't Diana Dale's step-son, he was either the "husband of my
biological daughter," or "husband of my step-daughter."
These are real people and they have descendants. I don't know why
Greene and Ward didn't respond to Joan Burdyck, but it's probably
because they didn't know. Although one poster said the term had
"numerous" meanings, in this case there are really only two
possibilities for the term used in regard to Daniel Harrison, aren't
there? The authority Joan consulted said to take it on a case by case
basis. So--in this case, why would it mean "husband of my
step-daughter?", especially when she never used the term to describe
the wealthy Thomas Carter?
JTC
an excellent work which should be required reading for anyone working
with colonial records. Although the book doesn't address the term
"son-in-law," it does offer some insight into the family structure of
17th century VA.
It states on pg 370-1 that the season of marriage in VA was determined
by the Anglican calendar and the crop cycle and fell in the period
between Christmas and Ash Wednesday. Few married during Lent due to
Anglican restrictions. The marriage period was highly stable from the
mid 17th to late 18th centuries. More babies were conceived in May,
June and July than at other times.
On pgs 276-7, Fischer makes some interesting comments about the family
structure in VA: the southern colonies had higher rates of illness and
death; children died young, as did marriage partners. In Tidewater VA
during the 17th century, more than three quarters of children lost a
parent before reaching the age of 18. Other kin were important.
According to Darrett and Anita Rutman, in just about any household one
might find orphans, half-brothers, step-brothers and step-sisters and
wards of all ages. The father figure in the house might be an uncle or
brother; the female a "now wife".
The above is well supported by the structure of the Rogers family after
the father died as I indicated in another thread.
The Rutmans also penned an article entitled "Now-Wives and Sons-in-Law"
which appeared in "The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century." I have
not read this article; I am citing it to show there has been literature
on the subject which predates 1989.
I do not want to accept a statement about the meaning of an important
term like "sonne in law" simply on somebody's own authority or
reputation, unless it is backed up by something they have written or
compiled, or by reference to something somebody else has written. It
seems to me that in a land transaction for legal reasons people would
want to be as clear as possible. Frankly, if the person were merely
"husband of my step-daughter," I don't see the purpose of stating a
relationship at all, but it does matter how the term was used in
specific situations as the more common meaning would be the "probable"
relationship. If a meaning is seldom used, I will note it but it's not
going to be a priority for me. In this instance, nobody has cited
anything but a personal opinion, and that trivializes such statements
and is an unfair aspersion on the work of others. It's worth noting
that Douglas Richardson accepts Diana Skipwith as the mother of all
three Dale daughters, and shows Mary Dale to be the middle daughter as
do I. I do not agree in the case of Katherine Carter, but that's not
germane to my argument.
If we are to ascribe a meaning to a term, it seems to me that we should
care why it was used the way it was in a given situation. Did one
family as opposed to others favor a broader use of the term? Did
different communities? What were the legal implications for using the
term in a specific way in a given document, particularly in those days
when land patents were often found to be defective and had to be
re-patented (I know this happened and it did happen to my ancestor
William Rogers even though Dale gave him the land gratis)? Is anybody
denying the fact that "sonne in law" could mean "husband of my
bilogical daughter" during this period? Would these various meanings
be more commonly used in certain situations?
Simply rattling off some usages of a term doesn't answer these
questions, and as I noted above, somebody apparently thought it was
worth an article.
In this case, there is no evidence, unlike Katherine Carter, that Mary
Harrison was not the daughter of Skipwith. Skipwith never used the
term "sonne in law" to describe Thomas Carter, even though his dealings
with the Dales were much more extensive than Harrison or Rogers'. The
only time she ever used the term was in the form of a power of attorney
to relinquish her dower in the conveyance of land to Thomas and
Katherine Carter. In fact, Diana Dale never stated any sort of
relationship to Thomas Carter or Katherine Dale in that deed or any
other document.
So, I want to see proof that "sonne in law" meant "husband of my
step-daughter," during this period. This could take the form of
journal article or a compilation of somebody's notes, etc. So far
nobody's produced any except me, and I haven't read the above article.
There were a couple of instances of "in-law" usage in the posts, but
none dealing with this specific situation. Since we know Harrison
wasn't Diana Dale's step-son, he was either the "husband of my
biological daughter," or "husband of my step-daughter."
These are real people and they have descendants. I don't know why
Greene and Ward didn't respond to Joan Burdyck, but it's probably
because they didn't know. Although one poster said the term had
"numerous" meanings, in this case there are really only two
possibilities for the term used in regard to Daniel Harrison, aren't
there? The authority Joan consulted said to take it on a case by case
basis. So--in this case, why would it mean "husband of my
step-daughter?", especially when she never used the term to describe
the wealthy Thomas Carter?
JTC
-
JeffChipman
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
Thanks, Becky.
In these threads the reader might think that the term "son in law" has
numerous meanings as it applies in this case. That is not true.
Actually, there are only two possibilities:
a. husband of my biological daughter
b. husband of my step-daughter
It would have been helpful if the person posting the "numerous
meanings" message had clarified that, as it will lead to more confusion
if left unchallenged. While a laundry list of definitions might look
impressive, here it it clouds the issue.
The reader cannot rate the probability of situation "a" or "b", because
nobody has offered anything to guide him. Apparently no one on this
board can say what they think it normally meant, or in what situation.
I say the most common usage is "a", which means that Mary Harrison was
probably Skipwith's daughter. Unfortunately Mary had no children that
survived to 1695 when Dale made his will, and she was deceased as well
as there is no mention of her in the will either. Her husband had died
in 1677.
People have overlooked the fact that Diana Skipwith knew Thomas Carter
before her marriage to Dale. This makes it even more curious that she
never called Carter her "son in law" or anything else. The only time,
in the data we have, that she stated any relationship to anybody was
when she called Daniel Harrison her "sonne in law." Dale himself
described Diana as his "now wife." This usually, but not always, meant
that a man had a previous wife.
So far the arguments I've read are specious. They pretend to add
something to the thread, but in reality muddy the waters.
There have been no examples of the term used as in option "b." They do
not know how frequently these other meanings were used, or why they
would be favored in a given situation. They have cited no literature,
and apparently want acceptance of their statements, which rest only on
their reputations, of which I know nothing.
So, one time Diana Dale uses the term: I want some proof that it meant
"b" rather than "a" in this case. When you filter out the BS, these
people don't know. They know nothing of this family and why the common
meaning of the term would not be true in this case, or how often
definition "a" was used as opposed to "b".
JTC
In these threads the reader might think that the term "son in law" has
numerous meanings as it applies in this case. That is not true.
Actually, there are only two possibilities:
a. husband of my biological daughter
b. husband of my step-daughter
It would have been helpful if the person posting the "numerous
meanings" message had clarified that, as it will lead to more confusion
if left unchallenged. While a laundry list of definitions might look
impressive, here it it clouds the issue.
The reader cannot rate the probability of situation "a" or "b", because
nobody has offered anything to guide him. Apparently no one on this
board can say what they think it normally meant, or in what situation.
I say the most common usage is "a", which means that Mary Harrison was
probably Skipwith's daughter. Unfortunately Mary had no children that
survived to 1695 when Dale made his will, and she was deceased as well
as there is no mention of her in the will either. Her husband had died
in 1677.
People have overlooked the fact that Diana Skipwith knew Thomas Carter
before her marriage to Dale. This makes it even more curious that she
never called Carter her "son in law" or anything else. The only time,
in the data we have, that she stated any relationship to anybody was
when she called Daniel Harrison her "sonne in law." Dale himself
described Diana as his "now wife." This usually, but not always, meant
that a man had a previous wife.
So far the arguments I've read are specious. They pretend to add
something to the thread, but in reality muddy the waters.
There have been no examples of the term used as in option "b." They do
not know how frequently these other meanings were used, or why they
would be favored in a given situation. They have cited no literature,
and apparently want acceptance of their statements, which rest only on
their reputations, of which I know nothing.
So, one time Diana Dale uses the term: I want some proof that it meant
"b" rather than "a" in this case. When you filter out the BS, these
people don't know. They know nothing of this family and why the common
meaning of the term would not be true in this case, or how often
definition "a" was used as opposed to "b".
JTC
-
The Thill Group, Inc.
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
Well said
Becky T, from under her rock
ttg-inc@comcast.net
"Life may not be the party we hoped for... but while we are here we might
as well dance !"
----- Original Message -----
From: "JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:56 PM
Subject: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
....<SNIP>
Becky T, from under her rock
ttg-inc@comcast.net
"Life may not be the party we hoped for... but while we are here we might
as well dance !"
----- Original Message -----
From: "JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:56 PM
Subject: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
....<SNIP>
JTC
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
JeffChipman wrote:
Let me get this straight. A book you have read that doesn't actually
address the question, and an article that does but which you haven't read?
I guess I should withdraw my comments in the face of your demonstrated
expertise.
(A dozen pontificating posts about the lack of scholarship of others,
and you can't be troubled to read an article on the precise subject
under discussion, in the exact region and time period being discussed.
Really says all that need be said. [sigh])
taf
"Albion's Seed," by David Hackett Fischer (1989,Oxford Univ. Press) is
an excellent work which should be required reading for anyone working
with colonial records. Although the book doesn't address the term
"son-in-law," . . . .
The Rutmans also penned an article entitled "Now-Wives and Sons-in-Law"
which appeared in "The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century." I have
not read this article; I am citing it to show there has been literature
on the subject which predates 1989.
Let me get this straight. A book you have read that doesn't actually
address the question, and an article that does but which you haven't read?
I guess I should withdraw my comments in the face of your demonstrated
expertise.
(A dozen pontificating posts about the lack of scholarship of others,
and you can't be troubled to read an article on the precise subject
under discussion, in the exact region and time period being discussed.
Really says all that need be said. [sigh])
taf
-
JeffChipman
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
Todd--
I mentioned the article because it deals with the topic. You have
cited absolutely nothing. Save your sighs for your love interest. I
did not say "Albion's Seed" covered the topic. I cited it because it
had something to say about family in 17th century VA which is more than
you've done.
I want to know what your authority is for your position? Is it your
own research, perhaps compiled notes? Is it an article in a journal?
You led readers to believe that "son in law" could have "numerous"
meanings, which was dissembling; you know damn well that only two of
them could apply to this situation:
1. husband of my biological daughter
2. husband of my step-daughter
I asked you what would be the frequency of use of no. 1 to no. 2? You
do not know, but through a mound of dissembling BS left the reader with
the impression that you did. The reader might get the idea that no. 2
was as common or more common than no. 1. You haven't cited anything to
support frequency of usage in any case.
Absolutely you should withdraw your comments. They are based on
nothing. I'm not accusing you of lack of scholarship. I'm accusing
you of trying to get your position accepted when it's nothing more than
your personal opinion, apparently backed with no written material of
any kind, by you or anybody else; that's not lack of scholarship, it's
intellectual dishonesty.
Again, my challenge is this:
What is the frequency of use for the term "son in law" for option "1"
as opposed to option "2"? I have yet to see an example from 17th
century VA that actually uses "son in law" as meaning no. 2. I expect
to see examples, of which I've been told there are many, but which so
far have yet to be proffered.
Why did Diana (Skipwith) Dale use only one term of relationship in her
entire married life, i.e. calling Daniel Harrison her "sonne in law"?
She never described Thomas Carter as anything, even though they were
apparently friends of some standing. Chronology alone makes an
excellent case that Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers was the daughter of
Skipwith.
What needs to be said, Todd, is that you are full of crap. You know
nothing about these people, and you have offered no evidence why this
term would be used this way in this situation. You have given the
reader with the impression that the uses of this and similar terms are
arbitrary. I think you know that's baloney and I'm going to hold you
intellectually accountable for it. These people are someone's family
and you're not going to brush them off as easily as Nat Taylor brushed
off Joan Burdyck.
So.. what do you have?
JTC
I mentioned the article because it deals with the topic. You have
cited absolutely nothing. Save your sighs for your love interest. I
did not say "Albion's Seed" covered the topic. I cited it because it
had something to say about family in 17th century VA which is more than
you've done.
I want to know what your authority is for your position? Is it your
own research, perhaps compiled notes? Is it an article in a journal?
You led readers to believe that "son in law" could have "numerous"
meanings, which was dissembling; you know damn well that only two of
them could apply to this situation:
1. husband of my biological daughter
2. husband of my step-daughter
I asked you what would be the frequency of use of no. 1 to no. 2? You
do not know, but through a mound of dissembling BS left the reader with
the impression that you did. The reader might get the idea that no. 2
was as common or more common than no. 1. You haven't cited anything to
support frequency of usage in any case.
Absolutely you should withdraw your comments. They are based on
nothing. I'm not accusing you of lack of scholarship. I'm accusing
you of trying to get your position accepted when it's nothing more than
your personal opinion, apparently backed with no written material of
any kind, by you or anybody else; that's not lack of scholarship, it's
intellectual dishonesty.
Again, my challenge is this:
What is the frequency of use for the term "son in law" for option "1"
as opposed to option "2"? I have yet to see an example from 17th
century VA that actually uses "son in law" as meaning no. 2. I expect
to see examples, of which I've been told there are many, but which so
far have yet to be proffered.
Why did Diana (Skipwith) Dale use only one term of relationship in her
entire married life, i.e. calling Daniel Harrison her "sonne in law"?
She never described Thomas Carter as anything, even though they were
apparently friends of some standing. Chronology alone makes an
excellent case that Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers was the daughter of
Skipwith.
What needs to be said, Todd, is that you are full of crap. You know
nothing about these people, and you have offered no evidence why this
term would be used this way in this situation. You have given the
reader with the impression that the uses of this and similar terms are
arbitrary. I think you know that's baloney and I'm going to hold you
intellectually accountable for it. These people are someone's family
and you're not going to brush them off as easily as Nat Taylor brushed
off Joan Burdyck.
So.. what do you have?
JTC
-
Gjest
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
JeffChipman wrote:
A headache.
What needs to be said, Todd, is that you are full of crap. You know
nothing about these people, and you have offered no evidence why this
term would be used this way in this situation. You have given the
reader with the impression that the uses of this and similar terms are
arbitrary. I think you know that's baloney and I'm going to hold you
intellectually accountable for it. These people are someone's family
and you're not going to brush them off as easily as Nat Taylor brushed
off Joan Burdyck.
So.. what do you have?
A headache.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
JeffChipman wrote:
How do you know - you haven't read it, except for the title. Do so,
first. Then when you play like you have some ground for your
conclusions, at least you will have actually informed yourself a bit first.
It was an accounting of various uses, which is what you had asked for.
To call that "dissembling", like some court TV lawyer playing for the
cameras, is intellectually dishonest but as we see below intellectual
dishonesty falls within your expertise, apparently.
I guess this is progress, as you have previously only allowed one.
What is obvious is that _you_, the person drawing the genealogical
conclusion from the use of the relational term, don't have the faintest
clue in spite of the importance you appear to place on such figures, but
you are not letting that stand in the way, instead putting your fingers
in your ears and humming really loud to drown out the chorus of people
telling you that you are reaching an unwarranted conclusion. (I, on the
other hand, am not about to provide such statistics no matter how
frequently you whine about them - I don't think genealogical questions
should be answered based on probability arguments. Remember the
recommendation of your source? Neither do they. A "case by case basis"
approach is antithetical to a statistical approach. They are absolute
opposites.)
"The reader" might get this idea if they decided, rather than actually
reading my posts, to simply read what you have been saying about them,
but that is about the only way they would get this idea. However, if
they only read what you have said, then they would also have to conclude
that the way scholarly genealogy works is that an advocate such as
yourself first draws a groundless genealogical conclusion based on a
position of ignorance, and then it is everyone else's sworn duty to
disprove their unsupported drivel.
You do realize that you have described your own behavior here, right?
Do you?
Before you start challenging others, read the source you yourself cited
on the use of the term son-in-law. Citation of sources is not a
competetive pursuit - the idea is that you actually read them. You are
demanding citations of others when you have right before you a reference
to an article that appears to specifically address the question at hand,
and yet you can't be bothered to actually read it. Before you challenge
others, get off you butt and read the damned article.
taf
Todd--
I mentioned the article because it deals with the topic.
How do you know - you haven't read it, except for the title. Do so,
first. Then when you play like you have some ground for your
conclusions, at least you will have actually informed yourself a bit first.
You led readers to believe that "son in law" could have "numerous"
meanings, which was dissembling;
It was an accounting of various uses, which is what you had asked for.
To call that "dissembling", like some court TV lawyer playing for the
cameras, is intellectually dishonest but as we see below intellectual
dishonesty falls within your expertise, apparently.
you know damn well that only two of
them could apply to this situation:
1. husband of my biological daughter
2. husband of my step-daughter
I guess this is progress, as you have previously only allowed one.
I asked you what would be the frequency of use of no. 1 to no. 2? You
do not know,
What is obvious is that _you_, the person drawing the genealogical
conclusion from the use of the relational term, don't have the faintest
clue in spite of the importance you appear to place on such figures, but
you are not letting that stand in the way, instead putting your fingers
in your ears and humming really loud to drown out the chorus of people
telling you that you are reaching an unwarranted conclusion. (I, on the
other hand, am not about to provide such statistics no matter how
frequently you whine about them - I don't think genealogical questions
should be answered based on probability arguments. Remember the
recommendation of your source? Neither do they. A "case by case basis"
approach is antithetical to a statistical approach. They are absolute
opposites.)
but through a mound of dissembling BS left the reader with
the impression that you did. The reader might get the idea that no. 2
was as common or more common than no. 1.
"The reader" might get this idea if they decided, rather than actually
reading my posts, to simply read what you have been saying about them,
but that is about the only way they would get this idea. However, if
they only read what you have said, then they would also have to conclude
that the way scholarly genealogy works is that an advocate such as
yourself first draws a groundless genealogical conclusion based on a
position of ignorance, and then it is everyone else's sworn duty to
disprove their unsupported drivel.
I'm not accusing you of lack of scholarship. I'm accusing
you of trying to get your position accepted when it's nothing more than
your personal opinion, apparently backed with no written material of
any kind, by you or anybody else; that's not lack of scholarship, it's
intellectual dishonesty.
You do realize that you have described your own behavior here, right?
Do you?
Again, my challenge is this:
Before you start challenging others, read the source you yourself cited
on the use of the term son-in-law. Citation of sources is not a
competetive pursuit - the idea is that you actually read them. You are
demanding citations of others when you have right before you a reference
to an article that appears to specifically address the question at hand,
and yet you can't be bothered to actually read it. Before you challenge
others, get off you butt and read the damned article.
taf
-
Storm
RE: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
Jeff,
Jeff wrote:
"So, I want to see proof that "sonne in law" meant "husband of my
step-daughter," during this period."
I am sympathetic to some degree to what you would like to prove. The problem
is that this is very important to you. You have researched the line. If
anyone is going to provide proof, it is up to you. The burden of proof is on
no one else. I would say your conclusion is probable, but not proven. Most
would probably agree. All of us have people in our pedigree that fit into
this category and it is frustrating when they cannot be proven. No one else
on this list has the responsibility of proving it for you. You are welcome
to believe whatever you would like about the line. Everyone else is welcome
to believe what they choose as well. Leave it at that and hope that someone
else who researches this line will prove it.
Regards,
Clark
-----Original Message-----
From: JeffChipman [mailto:jeffchip9@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:56 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
"Albion's Seed," by David Hackett Fischer (1989,Oxford Univ. Press) is
an excellent work which should be required reading for anyone working
with colonial records. Although the book doesn't address the term
"son-in-law," it does offer some insight into the family structure of
17th century VA.
It states on pg 370-1 that the season of marriage in VA was determined
by the Anglican calendar and the crop cycle and fell in the period
between Christmas and Ash Wednesday. Few married during Lent due to
Anglican restrictions. The marriage period was highly stable from the
mid 17th to late 18th centuries. More babies were conceived in May,
June and July than at other times.
On pgs 276-7, Fischer makes some interesting comments about the family
structure in VA: the southern colonies had higher rates of illness and
death; children died young, as did marriage partners. In Tidewater VA
during the 17th century, more than three quarters of children lost a
parent before reaching the age of 18. Other kin were important.
According to Darrett and Anita Rutman, in just about any household one
might find orphans, half-brothers, step-brothers and step-sisters and
wards of all ages. The father figure in the house might be an uncle or
brother; the female a "now wife".
The above is well supported by the structure of the Rogers family after
the father died as I indicated in another thread.
The Rutmans also penned an article entitled "Now-Wives and Sons-in-Law"
which appeared in "The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century." I have
not read this article; I am citing it to show there has been literature
on the subject which predates 1989.
I do not want to accept a statement about the meaning of an important
term like "sonne in law" simply on somebody's own authority or
reputation, unless it is backed up by something they have written or
compiled, or by reference to something somebody else has written. It
seems to me that in a land transaction for legal reasons people would
want to be as clear as possible. Frankly, if the person were merely
"husband of my step-daughter," I don't see the purpose of stating a
relationship at all, but it does matter how the term was used in
specific situations as the more common meaning would be the "probable"
relationship. If a meaning is seldom used, I will note it but it's not
going to be a priority for me. In this instance, nobody has cited
anything but a personal opinion, and that trivializes such statements
and is an unfair aspersion on the work of others. It's worth noting
that Douglas Richardson accepts Diana Skipwith as the mother of all
three Dale daughters, and shows Mary Dale to be the middle daughter as
do I. I do not agree in the case of Katherine Carter, but that's not
germane to my argument.
If we are to ascribe a meaning to a term, it seems to me that we should
care why it was used the way it was in a given situation. Did one
family as opposed to others favor a broader use of the term? Did
different communities? What were the legal implications for using the
term in a specific way in a given document, particularly in those days
when land patents were often found to be defective and had to be
re-patented (I know this happened and it did happen to my ancestor
William Rogers even though Dale gave him the land gratis)? Is anybody
denying the fact that "sonne in law" could mean "husband of my
bilogical daughter" during this period? Would these various meanings
be more commonly used in certain situations?
Simply rattling off some usages of a term doesn't answer these
questions, and as I noted above, somebody apparently thought it was
worth an article.
In this case, there is no evidence, unlike Katherine Carter, that Mary
Harrison was not the daughter of Skipwith. Skipwith never used the
term "sonne in law" to describe Thomas Carter, even though his dealings
with the Dales were much more extensive than Harrison or Rogers'. The
only time she ever used the term was in the form of a power of attorney
to relinquish her dower in the conveyance of land to Thomas and
Katherine Carter. In fact, Diana Dale never stated any sort of
relationship to Thomas Carter or Katherine Dale in that deed or any
other document.
So, I want to see proof that "sonne in law" meant "husband of my
step-daughter," during this period. This could take the form of
journal article or a compilation of somebody's notes, etc. So far
nobody's produced any except me, and I haven't read the above article.
There were a couple of instances of "in-law" usage in the posts, but
none dealing with this specific situation. Since we know Harrison
wasn't Diana Dale's step-son, he was either the "husband of my
biological daughter," or "husband of my step-daughter."
These are real people and they have descendants. I don't know why
Greene and Ward didn't respond to Joan Burdyck, but it's probably
because they didn't know. Although one poster said the term had
"numerous" meanings, in this case there are really only two
possibilities for the term used in regard to Daniel Harrison, aren't
there? The authority Joan consulted said to take it on a case by case
basis. So--in this case, why would it mean "husband of my
step-daughter?", especially when she never used the term to describe
the wealthy Thomas Carter?
JTC
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.1/250 - Release Date: 2/3/2006
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.1/250 - Release Date: 2/3/2006
Jeff wrote:
"So, I want to see proof that "sonne in law" meant "husband of my
step-daughter," during this period."
I am sympathetic to some degree to what you would like to prove. The problem
is that this is very important to you. You have researched the line. If
anyone is going to provide proof, it is up to you. The burden of proof is on
no one else. I would say your conclusion is probable, but not proven. Most
would probably agree. All of us have people in our pedigree that fit into
this category and it is frustrating when they cannot be proven. No one else
on this list has the responsibility of proving it for you. You are welcome
to believe whatever you would like about the line. Everyone else is welcome
to believe what they choose as well. Leave it at that and hope that someone
else who researches this line will prove it.
Regards,
Clark
-----Original Message-----
From: JeffChipman [mailto:jeffchip9@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2006 11:56 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
"Albion's Seed," by David Hackett Fischer (1989,Oxford Univ. Press) is
an excellent work which should be required reading for anyone working
with colonial records. Although the book doesn't address the term
"son-in-law," it does offer some insight into the family structure of
17th century VA.
It states on pg 370-1 that the season of marriage in VA was determined
by the Anglican calendar and the crop cycle and fell in the period
between Christmas and Ash Wednesday. Few married during Lent due to
Anglican restrictions. The marriage period was highly stable from the
mid 17th to late 18th centuries. More babies were conceived in May,
June and July than at other times.
On pgs 276-7, Fischer makes some interesting comments about the family
structure in VA: the southern colonies had higher rates of illness and
death; children died young, as did marriage partners. In Tidewater VA
during the 17th century, more than three quarters of children lost a
parent before reaching the age of 18. Other kin were important.
According to Darrett and Anita Rutman, in just about any household one
might find orphans, half-brothers, step-brothers and step-sisters and
wards of all ages. The father figure in the house might be an uncle or
brother; the female a "now wife".
The above is well supported by the structure of the Rogers family after
the father died as I indicated in another thread.
The Rutmans also penned an article entitled "Now-Wives and Sons-in-Law"
which appeared in "The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century." I have
not read this article; I am citing it to show there has been literature
on the subject which predates 1989.
I do not want to accept a statement about the meaning of an important
term like "sonne in law" simply on somebody's own authority or
reputation, unless it is backed up by something they have written or
compiled, or by reference to something somebody else has written. It
seems to me that in a land transaction for legal reasons people would
want to be as clear as possible. Frankly, if the person were merely
"husband of my step-daughter," I don't see the purpose of stating a
relationship at all, but it does matter how the term was used in
specific situations as the more common meaning would be the "probable"
relationship. If a meaning is seldom used, I will note it but it's not
going to be a priority for me. In this instance, nobody has cited
anything but a personal opinion, and that trivializes such statements
and is an unfair aspersion on the work of others. It's worth noting
that Douglas Richardson accepts Diana Skipwith as the mother of all
three Dale daughters, and shows Mary Dale to be the middle daughter as
do I. I do not agree in the case of Katherine Carter, but that's not
germane to my argument.
If we are to ascribe a meaning to a term, it seems to me that we should
care why it was used the way it was in a given situation. Did one
family as opposed to others favor a broader use of the term? Did
different communities? What were the legal implications for using the
term in a specific way in a given document, particularly in those days
when land patents were often found to be defective and had to be
re-patented (I know this happened and it did happen to my ancestor
William Rogers even though Dale gave him the land gratis)? Is anybody
denying the fact that "sonne in law" could mean "husband of my
bilogical daughter" during this period? Would these various meanings
be more commonly used in certain situations?
Simply rattling off some usages of a term doesn't answer these
questions, and as I noted above, somebody apparently thought it was
worth an article.
In this case, there is no evidence, unlike Katherine Carter, that Mary
Harrison was not the daughter of Skipwith. Skipwith never used the
term "sonne in law" to describe Thomas Carter, even though his dealings
with the Dales were much more extensive than Harrison or Rogers'. The
only time she ever used the term was in the form of a power of attorney
to relinquish her dower in the conveyance of land to Thomas and
Katherine Carter. In fact, Diana Dale never stated any sort of
relationship to Thomas Carter or Katherine Dale in that deed or any
other document.
So, I want to see proof that "sonne in law" meant "husband of my
step-daughter," during this period. This could take the form of
journal article or a compilation of somebody's notes, etc. So far
nobody's produced any except me, and I haven't read the above article.
There were a couple of instances of "in-law" usage in the posts, but
none dealing with this specific situation. Since we know Harrison
wasn't Diana Dale's step-son, he was either the "husband of my
biological daughter," or "husband of my step-daughter."
These are real people and they have descendants. I don't know why
Greene and Ward didn't respond to Joan Burdyck, but it's probably
because they didn't know. Although one poster said the term had
"numerous" meanings, in this case there are really only two
possibilities for the term used in regard to Daniel Harrison, aren't
there? The authority Joan consulted said to take it on a case by case
basis. So--in this case, why would it mean "husband of my
step-daughter?", especially when she never used the term to describe
the wealthy Thomas Carter?
JTC
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.1/250 - Release Date: 2/3/2006
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.1/250 - Release Date: 2/3/2006
-
JeffChipman
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
The Last Word?
I am going to cut to the chase here and save these people further
embarrassment. I have a large collection of genealogical records, and
of those records there are many concerning colonial pedigrees. This is
because both of my parents have extensive colonial ancestry.
I do not possess enough records to make any comments about how
frequently a term like "sonne in law" meant some less common, but
still used, meaning in colonial VA. I have one will written in 1789 in
which the testator referred to his step-father as his "father in
law." I know this because this man's step-father went to
Orphan's Court in Delaware in 1775 and received formal custody.
It's an easy identification. Other than this one example, I
personally have nothing to indicate that "sonne in law" meant
anything but its usual and ordinary sense.
Having said this, and in light of the refusal of these people to
produce their records, it seems to me that in order to make any useful
impact here you'd have to have enough records of this type to reach
some sort of conclusion. How many that would be is an important
question in any kind of study, not just genealogical. For me, if
someone had, say 10 such records, and broke down what the meaning of
the term was in each case, and compiled the results, it probably
wouldn't rate a journal article, but it would be of interest and some
import and I would give it some evidentiary weight. I would still want
to assess all available records, and I don't know if it would prove
anything, but if nothing else, it would be a talking point.
Here, I can't even comment on the statements of these claimants,
because I have absolutely nothing to work with. How do I know their
evidence is conclusive evidence of usage in a real case, much less that
it indicates a pattern? None of these people have even stated what
method they would use to derive such evidence.
Print any T-shirts you want. I'm a big boy and can take it. But if
you want me to take you seriously as a genealogist, I need to see your
evidence so I can judge its quality and the soundness of your
conclusions. That's not an imposition, it's a requirement of the
discipline! I don't have a problem with people making
unsubstantiated opinions, as long as they aren't masquerading as
something more.
A genealogical assertion needs to be weighed as to its importance
somehow, and the only way to do that is to examine the evidence and see
how compelling it is. Nat did not do that with Joan Burdyck, and he
has not done that here. Why does he think his ideas should be accepted
as anything more valid than anybody else's personal opinion? How
many records does he have that are relevant, and are there enough in
this period to draw any conclusion?
Nat gave Joan Burdyck the impression that this "evidence" was
significant enough to cast doubt upon her line. He did so without any
knowledge that it was true, and nobody in this thread has been able to
demonstrate its significance. Again, I am not questioning that the
term was not used at times as Nat indicated; I just don't think
it's as big a deal as some people would have you believe.
For chronological reasons I think Elizabeth Rogers was Skipwith's
daughter, but as far as Nat's observation goes, until somebody offers
some evidence so that the importance of it can be assessed, I don't
see how I can give it any credit at all.
These people are trying to peddle the malarkey that there is no such
thing as weighing evidence. This is nothing more than determining how
significant a piece of evidence is in a given genealogical situation.
You should read Stratton's "Applied Genealogy" because it deals
with this kind of thing in depth. It's a load of garbage to say that
because something "might" mean something that this raises doubt
about the line. Of course we weigh evidence; some things are more
important than others. The only way to weigh the importance of Nat's
observation is to determine how often the term was actually used to
mean a given definition. If it's only used in 10 per cent of the
cases, then I'm not going to lose sleep over it. If you people want
to obsess over it, that's your business.
It's interesting to me that we're discussing something about which
nobody has offered any hard evidence. Why is that?
Is it hysterics to demand that you bring some evidence to the table?
You're wrong; your opinion is evidence. It's just shoddy evidence. You
made an observation to Joan Burdyck, the importance of which you didn't
know, and you're peddling the baloney that she shoud stop dead in her
tracks. Shame on you.
I am going to make you produce some evidence, and if you can't,
everyone who reads this thread is going to know that you never produced
any.
JTC
4/5/06
I am going to cut to the chase here and save these people further
embarrassment. I have a large collection of genealogical records, and
of those records there are many concerning colonial pedigrees. This is
because both of my parents have extensive colonial ancestry.
I do not possess enough records to make any comments about how
frequently a term like "sonne in law" meant some less common, but
still used, meaning in colonial VA. I have one will written in 1789 in
which the testator referred to his step-father as his "father in
law." I know this because this man's step-father went to
Orphan's Court in Delaware in 1775 and received formal custody.
It's an easy identification. Other than this one example, I
personally have nothing to indicate that "sonne in law" meant
anything but its usual and ordinary sense.
Having said this, and in light of the refusal of these people to
produce their records, it seems to me that in order to make any useful
impact here you'd have to have enough records of this type to reach
some sort of conclusion. How many that would be is an important
question in any kind of study, not just genealogical. For me, if
someone had, say 10 such records, and broke down what the meaning of
the term was in each case, and compiled the results, it probably
wouldn't rate a journal article, but it would be of interest and some
import and I would give it some evidentiary weight. I would still want
to assess all available records, and I don't know if it would prove
anything, but if nothing else, it would be a talking point.
Here, I can't even comment on the statements of these claimants,
because I have absolutely nothing to work with. How do I know their
evidence is conclusive evidence of usage in a real case, much less that
it indicates a pattern? None of these people have even stated what
method they would use to derive such evidence.
Print any T-shirts you want. I'm a big boy and can take it. But if
you want me to take you seriously as a genealogist, I need to see your
evidence so I can judge its quality and the soundness of your
conclusions. That's not an imposition, it's a requirement of the
discipline! I don't have a problem with people making
unsubstantiated opinions, as long as they aren't masquerading as
something more.
A genealogical assertion needs to be weighed as to its importance
somehow, and the only way to do that is to examine the evidence and see
how compelling it is. Nat did not do that with Joan Burdyck, and he
has not done that here. Why does he think his ideas should be accepted
as anything more valid than anybody else's personal opinion? How
many records does he have that are relevant, and are there enough in
this period to draw any conclusion?
Nat gave Joan Burdyck the impression that this "evidence" was
significant enough to cast doubt upon her line. He did so without any
knowledge that it was true, and nobody in this thread has been able to
demonstrate its significance. Again, I am not questioning that the
term was not used at times as Nat indicated; I just don't think
it's as big a deal as some people would have you believe.
For chronological reasons I think Elizabeth Rogers was Skipwith's
daughter, but as far as Nat's observation goes, until somebody offers
some evidence so that the importance of it can be assessed, I don't
see how I can give it any credit at all.
These people are trying to peddle the malarkey that there is no such
thing as weighing evidence. This is nothing more than determining how
significant a piece of evidence is in a given genealogical situation.
You should read Stratton's "Applied Genealogy" because it deals
with this kind of thing in depth. It's a load of garbage to say that
because something "might" mean something that this raises doubt
about the line. Of course we weigh evidence; some things are more
important than others. The only way to weigh the importance of Nat's
observation is to determine how often the term was actually used to
mean a given definition. If it's only used in 10 per cent of the
cases, then I'm not going to lose sleep over it. If you people want
to obsess over it, that's your business.
It's interesting to me that we're discussing something about which
nobody has offered any hard evidence. Why is that?
Is it hysterics to demand that you bring some evidence to the table?
You're wrong; your opinion is evidence. It's just shoddy evidence. You
made an observation to Joan Burdyck, the importance of which you didn't
know, and you're peddling the baloney that she shoud stop dead in her
tracks. Shame on you.
I am going to make you produce some evidence, and if you can't,
everyone who reads this thread is going to know that you never produced
any.
JTC
4/5/06
-
Gjest
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
JeffChipman wrote:
We wish...
No you're not; you're going to bleat on as usual
I guess we should be used to you wilfully ignoring reality, but even I
am a bit surprised that at your vehement and repeated allegations that
no evidence has been posted. It has. Have you read it? Do you
understand it?
(snip of more blather)
See above.
(further snip of more drivel)
Rubbish - we are saying the complete opposite. It is you who is
ignoring the evidence.
See above.
It is when you ignore the evidence time and time again, and continue
with your irrational demands. Of course, you are the same genius who,
after Douglas Richardson presented the group with the Harleian
Manuscript evidence of Sir Walter Blount II that his father had two
wives, replied that it was "an error"; you are the same expert who
misread a single text on heraldry and then lectured the rest of us to
the point of nausea about your fantasy that a lozenge in the centre of
a quartered coat represents a single woman or widow - and when the
evidence was posted to show you were mistaken, you were conspicuous by
your silence.
(snip of usual tirade)
See above. Are you blind, stupid, or both?
The Last Word?
We wish...
I am going to cut to the chase here
No you're not; you're going to bleat on as usual
(snip)
Having said this, and in light of the refusal of these people to
produce their records, Here, I can't even comment on the
statements of these claimants,
because I have absolutely nothing to work with. How do I know their
evidence is conclusive evidence of usage in a real case, much less that
it indicates a pattern? None of these people have even stated what
method they would use to derive such evidence.
I guess we should be used to you wilfully ignoring reality, but even I
am a bit surprised that at your vehement and repeated allegations that
no evidence has been posted. It has. Have you read it? Do you
understand it?
(snip of more blather)
A genealogical assertion needs to be weighed as to its importance
somehow, and the only way to do that is to examine the evidence and see
how compelling it is.
See above.
(further snip of more drivel)
These people are trying to peddle the malarkey that there is no such
thing as weighing evidence.
Rubbish - we are saying the complete opposite. It is you who is
ignoring the evidence.
It's interesting to me that we're discussing something about which
nobody has offered any hard evidence.
See above.
Is it hysterics to demand that you bring some evidence to the table?
It is when you ignore the evidence time and time again, and continue
with your irrational demands. Of course, you are the same genius who,
after Douglas Richardson presented the group with the Harleian
Manuscript evidence of Sir Walter Blount II that his father had two
wives, replied that it was "an error"; you are the same expert who
misread a single text on heraldry and then lectured the rest of us to
the point of nausea about your fantasy that a lozenge in the centre of
a quartered coat represents a single woman or widow - and when the
evidence was posted to show you were mistaken, you were conspicuous by
your silence.
(snip of usual tirade)
I am going to make you produce some evidence, and if you can't,
everyone who reads this thread is going to know that you never produced
any.
See above. Are you blind, stupid, or both?
-
Renia
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
JeffChipman wrote:
People have produced examples. Are you dyslexic?
The Last Word?
I am going to cut to the chase here and save these people further
embarrassment. I have a large collection of genealogical records, and
of those records there are many concerning colonial pedigrees. This is
because both of my parents have extensive colonial ancestry.
I do not possess enough records to make any comments about how
frequently a term like "sonne in law" meant some less common, but
still used, meaning in colonial VA. I have one will written in 1789 in
which the testator referred to his step-father as his "father in
law." I know this because this man's step-father went to
Orphan's Court in Delaware in 1775 and received formal custody.
It's an easy identification. Other than this one example, I
personally have nothing to indicate that "sonne in law" meant
anything but its usual and ordinary sense.
Having said this, and in light of the refusal of these people to
produce their records,
People have produced examples. Are you dyslexic?
it seems to me that in order to make any useful
impact here you'd have to have enough records of this type to reach
some sort of conclusion. How many that would be is an important
question in any kind of study, not just genealogical. For me, if
someone had, say 10 such records, and broke down what the meaning of
the term was in each case, and compiled the results, it probably
wouldn't rate a journal article, but it would be of interest and some
import and I would give it some evidentiary weight. I would still want
to assess all available records, and I don't know if it would prove
anything, but if nothing else, it would be a talking point.
Here, I can't even comment on the statements of these claimants,
because I have absolutely nothing to work with. How do I know their
evidence is conclusive evidence of usage in a real case, much less that
it indicates a pattern? None of these people have even stated what
method they would use to derive such evidence.
Print any T-shirts you want. I'm a big boy and can take it. But if
you want me to take you seriously as a genealogist, I need to see your
evidence so I can judge its quality and the soundness of your
conclusions. That's not an imposition, it's a requirement of the
discipline! I don't have a problem with people making
unsubstantiated opinions, as long as they aren't masquerading as
something more.
A genealogical assertion needs to be weighed as to its importance
somehow, and the only way to do that is to examine the evidence and see
how compelling it is. Nat did not do that with Joan Burdyck, and he
has not done that here. Why does he think his ideas should be accepted
as anything more valid than anybody else's personal opinion? How
many records does he have that are relevant, and are there enough in
this period to draw any conclusion?
Nat gave Joan Burdyck the impression that this "evidence" was
significant enough to cast doubt upon her line. He did so without any
knowledge that it was true, and nobody in this thread has been able to
demonstrate its significance. Again, I am not questioning that the
term was not used at times as Nat indicated; I just don't think
it's as big a deal as some people would have you believe.
For chronological reasons I think Elizabeth Rogers was Skipwith's
daughter, but as far as Nat's observation goes, until somebody offers
some evidence so that the importance of it can be assessed, I don't
see how I can give it any credit at all.
These people are trying to peddle the malarkey that there is no such
thing as weighing evidence. This is nothing more than determining how
significant a piece of evidence is in a given genealogical situation.
You should read Stratton's "Applied Genealogy" because it deals
with this kind of thing in depth. It's a load of garbage to say that
because something "might" mean something that this raises doubt
about the line. Of course we weigh evidence; some things are more
important than others. The only way to weigh the importance of Nat's
observation is to determine how often the term was actually used to
mean a given definition. If it's only used in 10 per cent of the
cases, then I'm not going to lose sleep over it. If you people want
to obsess over it, that's your business.
It's interesting to me that we're discussing something about which
nobody has offered any hard evidence. Why is that?
Is it hysterics to demand that you bring some evidence to the table?
You're wrong; your opinion is evidence. It's just shoddy evidence. You
made an observation to Joan Burdyck, the importance of which you didn't
know, and you're peddling the baloney that she shoud stop dead in her
tracks. Shame on you.
I am going to make you produce some evidence, and if you can't,
everyone who reads this thread is going to know that you never produced
any.
JTC
4/5/06
-
Renia
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
JeffChipman wrote:
Several examples have already been produced but either you choose to
ignore them, or you can't read them.
And, personally, I take offence at the names you have been calling Nat
and Michael-Anne who are some of the Top Dogs around here, unlike
yourself, whose attitude is getting more embarrassing by the minute.
The Last Word?
I am going to cut to the chase here and save these people further
embarrassment. I have a large collection of genealogical records, and
of those records there are many concerning colonial pedigrees. This is
because both of my parents have extensive colonial ancestry.
I do not possess enough records to make any comments about how
frequently a term like "sonne in law" meant some less common, but
still used, meaning in colonial VA. I have one will written in 1789 in
which the testator referred to his step-father as his "father in
law." I know this because this man's step-father went to
Orphan's Court in Delaware in 1775 and received formal custody.
It's an easy identification. Other than this one example, I
personally have nothing to indicate that "sonne in law" meant
anything but its usual and ordinary sense.
Having said this, and in light of the refusal of these people to
produce their records, it seems to me that in order to make any useful
impact here you'd have to have enough records of this type to reach
some sort of conclusion. How many that would be is an important
question in any kind of study, not just genealogical. For me, if
someone had, say 10 such records, and broke down what the meaning of
the term was in each case, and compiled the results, it probably
wouldn't rate a journal article, but it would be of interest and some
import and I would give it some evidentiary weight. I would still want
to assess all available records, and I don't know if it would prove
anything, but if nothing else, it would be a talking point.
Here, I can't even comment on the statements of these claimants,
because I have absolutely nothing to work with. How do I know their
evidence is conclusive evidence of usage in a real case, much less that
it indicates a pattern? None of these people have even stated what
method they would use to derive such evidence.
Print any T-shirts you want. I'm a big boy and can take it. But if
you want me to take you seriously as a genealogist, I need to see your
evidence so I can judge its quality and the soundness of your
conclusions. That's not an imposition, it's a requirement of the
discipline! I don't have a problem with people making
unsubstantiated opinions, as long as they aren't masquerading as
something more.
A genealogical assertion needs to be weighed as to its importance
somehow, and the only way to do that is to examine the evidence and see
how compelling it is. Nat did not do that with Joan Burdyck, and he
has not done that here. Why does he think his ideas should be accepted
as anything more valid than anybody else's personal opinion? How
many records does he have that are relevant, and are there enough in
this period to draw any conclusion?
Nat gave Joan Burdyck the impression that this "evidence" was
significant enough to cast doubt upon her line. He did so without any
knowledge that it was true, and nobody in this thread has been able to
demonstrate its significance. Again, I am not questioning that the
term was not used at times as Nat indicated; I just don't think
it's as big a deal as some people would have you believe.
For chronological reasons I think Elizabeth Rogers was Skipwith's
daughter, but as far as Nat's observation goes, until somebody offers
some evidence so that the importance of it can be assessed, I don't
see how I can give it any credit at all.
These people are trying to peddle the malarkey that there is no such
thing as weighing evidence. This is nothing more than determining how
significant a piece of evidence is in a given genealogical situation.
You should read Stratton's "Applied Genealogy" because it deals
with this kind of thing in depth. It's a load of garbage to say that
because something "might" mean something that this raises doubt
about the line. Of course we weigh evidence; some things are more
important than others. The only way to weigh the importance of Nat's
observation is to determine how often the term was actually used to
mean a given definition. If it's only used in 10 per cent of the
cases, then I'm not going to lose sleep over it. If you people want
to obsess over it, that's your business.
It's interesting to me that we're discussing something about which
nobody has offered any hard evidence. Why is that?
Is it hysterics to demand that you bring some evidence to the table?
You're wrong; your opinion is evidence. It's just shoddy evidence. You
made an observation to Joan Burdyck, the importance of which you didn't
know, and you're peddling the baloney that she shoud stop dead in her
tracks. Shame on you.
I am going to make you produce some evidence, and if you can't,
everyone who reads this thread is going to know that you never produced
any.
JTC
4/5/06
Several examples have already been produced but either you choose to
ignore them, or you can't read them.
And, personally, I take offence at the names you have been calling Nat
and Michael-Anne who are some of the Top Dogs around here, unlike
yourself, whose attitude is getting more embarrassing by the minute.
-
John Brandon
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
Renia wrote:
I'll bet two people are cringing right about now ...
And, personally, I take offence at the names you have been calling Nat
and Michael-Anne who are some of the Top Dogs around here, unlike
I'll bet two people are cringing right about now ...
-
Renia
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
John Brandon wrote:
Don't quite know what you mean, ala den peirazei.
Renia wrote:
And, personally, I take offence at the names you have been calling Nat
and Michael-Anne who are some of the Top Dogs around here, unlike
I'll bet two people are cringing right about now ...
Don't quite know what you mean, ala den peirazei.
-
John Brandon
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
ala den peirazei.
What's that, some hiphop slang?
-
Renia
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
John Brandon wrote:
Nope. Greek. Meaning: but it doesn't matter.
(Just showing off that I've been learning some of the language while I
am here!)
ala den peirazei.
What's that, some hiphop slang?
Nope. Greek. Meaning: but it doesn't matter.
(Just showing off that I've been learning some of the language while I
am here!)
-
John Brandon
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
(Just showing off that I've been learning some of the language while I
am here!)
Hmmmm, trying to rise to the status of TOP DOG, I see.
-
Renia
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
John Brandon wrote:
Ooh, no. I've got a long way to go.
(Just showing off that I've been learning some of the language while I
am here!)
Hmmmm, trying to rise to the status of TOP DOG, I see.
Ooh, no. I've got a long way to go.
-
Mark Briscoe
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
<snip>
I've not read the article in question, and as it's not pertinent to my
own research I won't go out of my way to do so. But I'll make two
observations:
1. The article appears in _The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century:
Essays on Anglo-American Society_, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman
eds., a used copy of which can be had for about $10 through Amazon (and
probably any number of other booksellers)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080781 ... oding=UTF8
, and
2. The article, which JeffChipman cites as "Now-Wives and
Sons-in-Law," is actually titled "Now-Wives and Sons-in-Law:
Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County." The omitted
subtitle may be significant. One might wonder how the term
"sons-in-law" in the modern sense would be especially relevant to
an article on parental death. One might further wonder if the term
"sons-in-law" meaning "step son" or perhaps even "husband of
a step daughter" might be more relevant in the context of such an
article. Of course, there is one way to find out. If this were an issue
one were particularly interested in (I am not that one), it seems to me
that he or she might shell out ten bucks and then read the thing.
Note: I'm not selling the book in question and do not stand to profit
from its sale.
<snip>
Before you start challenging others, read the source you yourself cited
on the use of the term son-in-law. Citation of sources is not a
competetive pursuit - the idea is that you actually read them. You are
demanding citations of others when you have right before you a reference
to an article that appears to specifically address the question at hand,
and yet you can't be bothered to actually read it. Before you challenge
others, get off you butt and read the damned article.
taf
I've not read the article in question, and as it's not pertinent to my
own research I won't go out of my way to do so. But I'll make two
observations:
1. The article appears in _The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century:
Essays on Anglo-American Society_, Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman
eds., a used copy of which can be had for about $10 through Amazon (and
probably any number of other booksellers)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080781 ... oding=UTF8
, and
2. The article, which JeffChipman cites as "Now-Wives and
Sons-in-Law," is actually titled "Now-Wives and Sons-in-Law:
Parental Death in a Seventeenth-Century Virginia County." The omitted
subtitle may be significant. One might wonder how the term
"sons-in-law" in the modern sense would be especially relevant to
an article on parental death. One might further wonder if the term
"sons-in-law" meaning "step son" or perhaps even "husband of
a step daughter" might be more relevant in the context of such an
article. Of course, there is one way to find out. If this were an issue
one were particularly interested in (I am not that one), it seems to me
that he or she might shell out ten bucks and then read the thing.
Note: I'm not selling the book in question and do not stand to profit
from its sale.
-
Vickie Elam White
Re: Albion's Seed; or what does "son-in-law" mean
Because the lawyer who drew up the papers that time was better
at details than previous lawyers?
I know that sounds flippant, but it isn't meant to be. My point is
that the lack of relationships in these transactions may or may not
be important. In this case, maybe she was just distinguishing her
SIL from some other Daniel Harrison (although I'm not sure if there
were other Daniels in that neck of the woods at that time).
Vickie Elam White
"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144160627.269256.57320@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
snip
snip
at details than previous lawyers?
I know that sounds flippant, but it isn't meant to be. My point is
that the lack of relationships in these transactions may or may not
be important. In this case, maybe she was just distinguishing her
SIL from some other Daniel Harrison (although I'm not sure if there
were other Daniels in that neck of the woods at that time).
Vickie Elam White
"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144160627.269256.57320@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
snip
Why did Diana (Skipwith) Dale use only one term of relationship in her
entire married life, i.e. calling Daniel Harrison her "sonne in law"?
She never described Thomas Carter as anything, even though they were
apparently friends of some standing. Chronology alone makes an
excellent case that Elizabeth (Dale) Rogers was the daughter of
Skipwith.
snip