Son-in-law

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Son-in-law

Legg inn av Gjest » 04 apr 2006 23:49:01

Hi Everyone:

In Virginia records, the term son-in-law has referred to one of the
following: stepson, foster son or son-in-law as we know if today. In some cases,
I have seen the term "friend" used for a cousin or son-in-law. As Preston
Haynie has said, you have to take it case by case. I have known Preston for
over 20 years and I can say that I have never seen a person as devoted to
genealogy as he is. He will be the first to tell you that not all information was
recorded. There are things that we will never know the correct answer to.

Joan Burdyck

JeffChipman

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 05 apr 2006 15:35:16

Joan--
I took Preston Haynie's comment to mean that we must examine all the
evidence in a specific case before deciding what "sonne in law" meant
in that instance. Charles Martin Ward did, in my view, manage to
disprove the claim of royal ancestry for Katherine Dale. That is not a
unanimously held opinion. Ward did not mention Elizabeth Dale in his
article, but did mention Mary Dale as an undiscovered daughter of
Edward Dale; he made no comment indicating whether or not he thought
Mary Dale was the daughter of Diana Skipwith. He was right that Mary
Dale was our Edward Dale's daughter.

I do not know how much weight to give Nat Taylor's comment to you in
2001 because I do not know what he based it upon. A number of people
in these various threads have claimed to have (presumably) enough
records to shed some light on this topic. As of 9:15 on April 5, 2006,
none of them have produced anything.

Genealogists routinely weigh evidence. In a given situation, some
things are more important than others. If Nat has nothing to base his
observation on, other that the knowledge that a word has more than one
meaning, that's interesting, but may be of no value in the specific
instance. Since Nat (or anybody else) has yet to produce any evidence,
I don't see how I can give his statement any weight, and I think he was
wrong to trot it out and leave the impression that it was a serious
obstacle to the line being accepted.

I do not know how many times the term "son-in-law" was used in 17th
cent VA records, but since many families had daughters who married, I
would think it would be quite a number. I don't think it's fair to
question these pedigrees because a term might be (although we have no
idea how many times) occasionally ambiguous. To give an example from
later times, it is a truism of census research that different censuses
can give different ages for the same person. That doesn't mean they
are different people. We need to examine all the evidence to reach a
determination.

Again, in this instance I have nothing to work with, and until I do, I
can't give any credence to Renia and Nat's et. al. arguments. How
could I?

JTC

Gjest

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 15:47:06

JeffChipman wrote:
Joan--
I took Preston Haynie's comment to mean that we must examine all the
evidence in a specific case before deciding what "sonne in law" meant
in that instance. Charles Martin Ward did, in my view, manage to
disprove the claim of royal ancestry for Katherine Dale. That is not a
unanimously held opinion. Ward did not mention Elizabeth Dale in his
article, but did mention Mary Dale as an undiscovered daughter of
Edward Dale; he made no comment indicating whether or not he thought
Mary Dale was the daughter of Diana Skipwith. He was right that Mary
Dale was our Edward Dale's daughter.

I do not know how much weight to give Nat Taylor's comment to you in
2001 because I do not know what he based it upon. A number of people
in these various threads have claimed to have (presumably) enough
records to shed some light on this topic. As of 9:15 on April 5, 2006,
none of them have produced anything.

Not to put too fine a point on it, this is an untruth.

Genealogists routinely weigh evidence. In a given situation, some
things are more important than others. If Nat has nothing to base his
observation on, other that the knowledge that a word has more than one
meaning, that's interesting, but may be of no value in the specific
instance. Since Nat (or anybody else) has yet to produce any evidence,

Regardless of how may times this assertion is made, it remains an
untruth.

I don't see how I can give his statement any weight, and I think he was
wrong to trot it out and leave the impression that it was a serious
obstacle to the line being accepted.

I do not know how many times the term "son-in-law" was used in 17th
cent VA records, but since many families had daughters who married, I
would think it would be quite a number. I don't think it's fair to
question these pedigrees because a term might be (although we have no
idea how many times) occasionally ambiguous. To give an example from
later times, it is a truism of census research that different censuses
can give different ages for the same person. That doesn't mean they
are different people. We need to examine all the evidence to reach a
determination.

Again, in this instance I have nothing to work with.

Still an untruth. Are my posts invisible?

Gjest

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 16:35:42

JeffChipman wrote:

Again, in this instance I have nothing to work with, and until I do, I
can't give any credence to Renia and Nat's et. al. arguments. How
could I?

Here's another reference for you to ignore:

In her will dated 25 January 1657/8, Mercy Docwra of Cambridge, second
wife and widow of James Docwra, refers to her step-son Thomas Docwra
(son of her husband's first marriage) as "my son-in-law Thomas Docwra".

The will was proved at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 12 June
1658 Prob 11/277.


MA-R

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 05 apr 2006 17:14:55

In article <1144251342.207702.162060@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

JeffChipman wrote:

Again, in this instance I have nothing to work with, and until I do, I
can't give any credence to Renia and Nat's et. al. arguments. How
could I?

Here's another reference for you to ignore:

In her will dated 25 January 1657/8, Mercy Docwra of Cambridge, second
wife and widow of James Docwra, refers to her step-son Thomas Docwra
(son of her husband's first marriage) as "my son-in-law Thomas Docwra".

The will was proved at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 12 June
1658 Prob 11/277.

In fairness to Jeff, what he's asking for is instances where
'son-in-law' is used for 'husband of step-daughter', not just for
'step-son' (which is truly ubiquitous). Both meanings are logically
included when understands the meaning of the term from a legal point of
view, and it is explicitly included in various glossaries that one can
find in the how-to literature (e.g.:

http://www.genfiles.com/legal/legalterms.htm

). On the other hand, no one seems to have a seventeenth-century
Virginian example on hand, right at the moment.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

my children's 17th-century American immigrant ancestors:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltay ... rantsa.htm

Gjest

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Gjest » 05 apr 2006 17:23:44

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In fairness to Jeff, what he's asking for is instances where
'son-in-law' is used for 'husband of step-daughter', not just for
'step-son' (which is truly ubiquitous).

Thanks, Nat; it's a relief to know I'm not just whistling into the
ether.

Jeff has posted on several occasions that he wants evidence for the
assertion made here by various posters that "son-in-law" has more than
one meaning. For instance, he posted yesterday "What I get in return
is statements that "son-in-law" can
mean "numerous" things, without a citation to anything. I object to
the notion that because you say the term can mean various
things, without any reference" etc etc

If I had Virginian references, or any other contemporary references to
a stepson-in-law, I'd gladly provide them. In the absence of any, I
have furnished several referenced instances to show Jeff that
"son-in-law" at least had more than one meaning at the time; to date he
has ignorned this.

Michael

Renia

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Renia » 05 apr 2006 18:09:57

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

JeffChipman wrote:

Joan--
I took Preston Haynie's comment to mean that we must examine all the
evidence in a specific case before deciding what "sonne in law" meant
in that instance. Charles Martin Ward did, in my view, manage to
disprove the claim of royal ancestry for Katherine Dale. That is not a
unanimously held opinion. Ward did not mention Elizabeth Dale in his
article, but did mention Mary Dale as an undiscovered daughter of
Edward Dale; he made no comment indicating whether or not he thought
Mary Dale was the daughter of Diana Skipwith. He was right that Mary
Dale was our Edward Dale's daughter.

I do not know how much weight to give Nat Taylor's comment to you in
2001 because I do not know what he based it upon. A number of people
in these various threads have claimed to have (presumably) enough
records to shed some light on this topic. As of 9:15 on April 5, 2006,
none of them have produced anything.


Not to put too fine a point on it, this is an untruth.


Genealogists routinely weigh evidence. In a given situation, some
things are more important than others. If Nat has nothing to base his
observation on, other that the knowledge that a word has more than one
meaning, that's interesting, but may be of no value in the specific
instance. Since Nat (or anybody else) has yet to produce any evidence,


Regardless of how may times this assertion is made, it remains an
untruth.


I don't see how I can give his statement any weight, and I think he was
wrong to trot it out and leave the impression that it was a serious
obstacle to the line being accepted.

I do not know how many times the term "son-in-law" was used in 17th
cent VA records, but since many families had daughters who married, I
would think it would be quite a number. I don't think it's fair to
question these pedigrees because a term might be (although we have no
idea how many times) occasionally ambiguous. To give an example from
later times, it is a truism of census research that different censuses
can give different ages for the same person. That doesn't mean they
are different people. We need to examine all the evidence to reach a
determination.

Again, in this instance I have nothing to work with.


Still an untruth. Are my posts invisible?

And mine?

Renia

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Renia » 05 apr 2006 18:12:09

JeffChipman wrote:

Joan--
I took Preston Haynie's comment to mean that we must examine all the
evidence in a specific case before deciding what "sonne in law" meant
in that instance. Charles Martin Ward did, in my view, manage to
disprove the claim of royal ancestry for Katherine Dale. That is not a
unanimously held opinion. Ward did not mention Elizabeth Dale in his
article, but did mention Mary Dale as an undiscovered daughter of
Edward Dale; he made no comment indicating whether or not he thought
Mary Dale was the daughter of Diana Skipwith. He was right that Mary
Dale was our Edward Dale's daughter.

I do not know how much weight to give Nat Taylor's comment to you in
2001 because I do not know what he based it upon. A number of people
in these various threads have claimed to have (presumably) enough
records to shed some light on this topic. As of 9:15 on April 5, 2006,
none of them have produced anything.

Genealogists routinely weigh evidence. In a given situation, some
things are more important than others. If Nat has nothing to base his
observation on, other that the knowledge that a word has more than one
meaning, that's interesting, but may be of no value in the specific
instance. Since Nat (or anybody else) has yet to produce any evidence,
I don't see how I can give his statement any weight, and I think he was
wrong to trot it out and leave the impression that it was a serious
obstacle to the line being accepted.

I do not know how many times the term "son-in-law" was used in 17th
cent VA records, but since many families had daughters who married, I
would think it would be quite a number. I don't think it's fair to
question these pedigrees because a term might be (although we have no
idea how many times) occasionally ambiguous. To give an example from
later times, it is a truism of census research that different censuses
can give different ages for the same person. That doesn't mean they
are different people. We need to examine all the evidence to reach a
determination.

Exactly what I have been saying. You need more evidence for the truths
of the relationships in this family. But that is for you to provide, not us.


Again, in this instance I have nothing to work with, and until I do, I
can't give any credence to Renia and Nat's et. al. arguments. How
could I?

JTC

JeffChipman

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av JeffChipman » 05 apr 2006 23:57:21

Your posts aren't invisible. They just make no sense. The opinion you
didn't like is that of Eugene Stratton in "Applied Genealogy."

Nobody has yet provided a single document of 17th VA which illustrates
this principle. I want to know specifically how significant Nat's
criticism of Joan Burdyck's 1674 deed is. A PCC will is better than
nothing, but it's not VA, is it? I am saying that Nat's critique of
Joan's evidence isn't THAT important, because I don't think the term
was used that way enough to reject the evidence based solely on that,
and he has apparently no idea of how often that was the case. You will
be horrified to learn that I expect Nat to back his statement up with
something. That is the only possible way I can weigh his evidence. You
are asking me to accept Nat's statement based solely upon his
reputation. When Nat is calling into question the genealogical value
of thousands of VA/MD documents, I think I am well within my rights to
ask to see his evidence. Do you understand, sir? Do you realize how
sweeping this would be?
I am rejecting Nat's notion that the occasional use of this term in a
broader and archaic sense is enough to render Joan's document of no
value.

I don't know you, but all you have said above is that my argument isn't
true.

There--I said it.

JTC

Gjest

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 00:20:09

JeffChipman schrieb:

Your posts aren't invisible. They just make no sense. The opinion you
didn't like is that of Eugene Stratton in "Applied Genealogy."

Er, I said nothing about not liking an opinion, Stratton's or
otherwise. Of course, when you snip every post to which you reply,
it's hard for anyone to know what you are talking about.

Nobody has yet provided a single document of 17th VA which illustrates
this principle. I want to know specifically how significant Nat's
criticism of Joan Burdyck's 1674 deed is. A PCC will is better than
nothing, but it's not VA, is it? I am saying that Nat's critique of
Joan's evidence isn't THAT important, because I don't think the term
was used that way enough to reject the evidence based solely on that,
and he has apparently no idea of how often that was the case. You will
be horrified to learn that I expect Nat to back his statement up with
something. That is the only possible way I can weigh his evidence. You
are asking me to accept Nat's statement based solely upon his
reputation. When Nat is calling into question the genealogical value
of thousands of VA/MD documents, I think I am well within my rights to
ask to see his evidence. Do you understand, sir? Do you realize how
sweeping this would be?

I realise exactly what is under discussion: the meaning of terms used
in the 17th century. If this meaning, or range of meaning, means that
17th century Virginian documents may not be as clear cut in terms of
their genealogical content, just as English documents of the same
period are not as clear cut for the same reason, then so be it. That
is simply stating a likely situation, not calling anyone's professional
repute into question.

I am rejecting Nat's notion that the occasional use of this term in a
broader and archaic sense is enough to render Joan's document of no
value.

Nobody is saying that the document is of no value. We are, however
saying that its value must be considered in the light of other factors,
such as language usage at the time of its creation. Again, this is not
a personal slur against anyone.

I don't know you, but all you have said above is that my argument isn't
true.

And I have presented what evidence I have available to refute your
argument, as opposed to your method, which is to repeat denials in
vehement terms while demanding those disagreeing with you furnish proof
to your ever-increasing standards.

Doug McDonald

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 06 apr 2006 02:25:01

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
JeffChipman wrote:

Again, in this instance I have nothing to work with, and until I do, I
can't give any credence to Renia and Nat's et. al. arguments. How
could I?

Here's another reference for you to ignore:

In her will dated 25 January 1657/8, Mercy Docwra of Cambridge,

Is that Cambridge, Virginia? If not, then you are not
addressing Chipman's question ... which was Virginia.

second
wife and widow of James Docwra, refers to her step-son Thomas Docwra
(son of her husband's first marriage) as "my son-in-law Thomas Docwra".

The will was proved at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 12 June
1658 Prob 11/277.


MA-R


Doug McDonald

Gjest

Re: Son-in-law

Legg inn av Gjest » 06 apr 2006 09:56:37

Doug McDonald wrote:
mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:
JeffChipman wrote:

Again, in this instance I have nothing to work with, and until I do, I
can't give any credence to Renia and Nat's et. al. arguments. How
could I?

Here's another reference for you to ignore:

In her will dated 25 January 1657/8, Mercy Docwra of Cambridge,

Is that Cambridge, Virginia? If not, then you are not
addressing Chipman's question ... which was Virginia.

Doug, do you seriously think that English settlers upon moving to
Virginia suddenly began speaking a new version of English?

Before he began demanding that all examples be taken from late 17th
century Tidewater Virginia [a probably impossible bar], Jeff posted the
following:

"I regard Diana Dale's use of the term "son-in-law" as ironclad proof
that Mary Dale was her daughter" (3 April 2006)

and

"What I get in return is statements that "son-in-law" can mean
"numerous" things, without a citation to anything. Nobody yet has
supplied even a hint of a reason why "son-in-law" means "husband of a
step-daughter" in this case. I object to the notion that because you
say the term can mean various things, without any reference to the
likeliest usage, that I am somehow responsible to you to show what it
means in this case." (4 April 2006)

I have cited four English cases about the use of "son-in-law" and
"daughter-in-law" to mean stepson or stepdaughter, and the use of
"father-in-law" to mean stepfather-in-law. These range from 1530 to
1698, and come from Kent, Cambridge and Berkshire - a reasonable
chronological and geographical spread. As Jeff himself has noted, it
is one thing to say that a word can have various meanings, and that
instances of the same are ubiquitous; it is another to put one's finger
on some, which is what I have essayed to do. Interestingly, Jeff
himself has not produced any evidence whatsoever - he is too busy
spitting vituperation I suppose.

These four examples are, I admit, not the most persuasive evidence that
could be desired (Clark has certainly produced some interesting
material) but to ignore them or say that they are of no value seems
rather foolish.

Now, of course, Jeff is saying that "the most likely" meaning is the
essential thing, somehow to be equated with his concept of "iron-clad
proof" [I hope he is never a juror on a criminal trial, given that he
cannot fathom the distinction between likelihood and proof], as if
statistics will magically resolve the doubts that anyone without an
irrational determination to preserve an cherished pedigree can see
surround this case.

M Andrews-Reading

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»