The Maternity of Eliazabeth Dale, Pt. 2
I am constructing this thread because this discussion has spilled over
into many threads; people are telling me they have posted material
I'm having difficulty locating, etc.
This is what I'd like to do:
a. Confine the discussion to the VA/MD region. Please, no Maine census
returns, late medieval wills, 3 PCC wills, etc. Why? Because I'm
not disputing that the term "sonne in law" could have multiple
meanings, and I don't want to needlessly complicate matters by
introducing foreign material. I appreciate these posters' efforts to
put some evidence on the table, and I find it interesting, but my
ancestors lived in Lancaster Co., VA, so I'd like to confine the
evidence we peruse at least to the VA/MD area. As far as I know,
nobody has presented any 17th century VA documents, but if they have,
could they re-post them here?
b. Confine the evidence to the 17th century, or at least before large
numbers of Scots-Irish settled in VA. I'm not knocking the
Scots-Irish, I'm just trying to keep things as culturally simple as I
can. I know it's not perfect, but there you go.
c. Discuss the term "son in law." I know "daughter in law" is
a corresponding term for females, but I don't want to introduce
another variable, and since it may have had some different twists than
its male counterpart, I don't want that to become a side issue. I
will stipulate that it means much the same thing as "sonne in law"
for women, and leave it at that.
d. For reasons of clarity, I would like anybody posting to this thread
to state their position in two paragraphs or less, unless you have a
deed or will to put into evidence, in which case an abstract and
summary of the finding and why the finding was made would be useful.
It is hard to judge anecdotal evidence such as "all genealogists
know", etc. That may be true, but I'm a genealogist and I might
not know, so it will eliminate derailing the discussion into a
pointless direction. I know that's an arbitrary stipulation, and in
the view of some restrictive, but it will force people to choose their
words carefully, and prevent anybody, myself included, from hijacking
the thread.
My position, simply stated, is that the various uses of the term
"sonne in law" are not equal in frequency. In the ordinary course
of things, some occur more frequently than others. The use of the term
as to mean "husband of my biological daughter" is the most common
meaning, then and now. Because it has not been demonstrated that the
usage "husband of my step-daughter" occurs with enough frequency to
pose a problem in the interpretation of the evidence, I am not going to
reject a genealogical conclusion simply based upon its use in a
document, unless there are contra-indications. In other words, I am
going to "weigh" the value of this evidence according to the
frequency with which it meant certain things and whether or not there
are other problems with the pedigree.
Given that many VA families had daughters that married, the term
"sonne in law" must have been used in many documents. We therefore
should be careful that our arguments really mean something, since they
impact a great many research situations. To require that a researcher
ferret out every possible meaning to satisfy somebody else's opinion
might not be justified.
That's it. I have to sign off until sometime tomorrow, but I am
hoping that enough people will contribute to this thread to give a wide
spectrum of opinion.
JTC
Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Renia
Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited
JeffChipman wrote:
As you have specified this thread, I hope others don't mind me placing
this here. It is a post from Clark from the "son-in-law" thread:
Storm wrote:
The Maternity of Eliazabeth Dale, Pt. 2
I am constructing this thread because this discussion has spilled over
into many threads; people are telling me they have posted material
I'm having difficulty locating, etc.
As you have specified this thread, I hope others don't mind me placing
this here. It is a post from Clark from the "son-in-law" thread:
Storm wrote:
Jeff and others,
I have lurked on this list for many years and the current flare up is the
funniest of them all, which is saying something if you remember the
entertaining exchanges between Mr. Hines and anyone who would respond.
Hopefully, those interested in the Dale discussion will find the
following
information helpful. Each reference was found within twenty minutes of
searching google. I heartily recommend the search engine to Mr.
Chipman and
suggest that he do his own research in the future, instead of
demanding that
it be provided from a group concerned with Medieval genealogy. By the
way,
if you did not know, 17th century Virginia is somewhat later than the
Medieval period.
I have no idea how accurate any of these are, but I would suggest
they are a
good starting point for *your* further research.
Regards,
Clark
Elizabeth _____ who survived him [John Clay] to marry (2) John Wall
and (3)
John Tate. … In the Virginia Records is a "Deed of Gift", dated 3 October
1660, whereby John Wall conveyed 2 ewes to his "sonne in Law" (step-son)
CHARLES CLAY; and at Westover Court, 1663, "Elizabeth Clay Wall",
widow and
Joseph Wall, son of John Wall, Dec’d., were authorized by Court to choose
three or four persons from Martin’s Brandon to settle the estate of John
Wall, according tot he provisions of his will. (Ref: Virginia County
Records, Vol. II, pp 78 and 245, Congressional Library, Washington,
D. C.).
On October 3, 1660 a deed of gift for 2 ewes was made by John Wall
"unto his
son-in-law CHARLES CLAY" in Charles City County (Fleet, Virginia Colonial
Abstracts, Vol. 11, Charles City County Court Orders, 1658-61, page 78)
---------
There was also a ninth, perhaps posthumous, child named Aliffe,
apparently
named after Thomas Ivey’s mother. His widow, Alice Ivey, remarried to
William Cornick, whose father Simon Cornick had received a patent in
Norfolk
County in 1653 for importation of 13 persons, among them his son William
Cornick. On 9 January 1691/2, William Cornick made deeds of gift to
his wife
Alice’s children Lemuel Ivy and Aliffe Ivy and his sons-in-law (meaning
stepsons) Ludford Ivy and Anthony Ivy. (Princess Anne Deed Book 1, p15.
(Also see William and Mary Quarterly, Series I, Vol. 24, p 284.)
----------
Thomas Southworth, brother of Constant Southworth, was probably born at
Leiden ca 1616-1620. He came to Plymouth sometime after 1627, most likely
living with his mother, Alice, and her husband, Gov. William Bradford. He
married 1 September 1641 Elizabeth Reyner, daughter of Rev. John
Reyner, and
they had one child, Elizabeth, who married Joseph Howland. On 28 October
1641 William Bradford gave a house and land "unto my sone-in-law
[stepson]
Thomas Southworth". He died 8 December 1669. His will dated 18 November
1669, proved 1 March 1669/70, named his wife and his daughter Elizabeth
Howland, and her husband Joseph, and left gifts to Thomas Southworth.
(Plymouth Colony Wills, vol. III, p. 1.) *Not in Virigina*
----------
According to Alvahn Holmes' "The Farrar's Island Family," Cecily
(Reynolds?)
Baley (Bailey) Jordan Farrar, after the death in 1637 of her third
husband,
William Farrar (age 43), may have married (according to some researchers)
Peter Montague, whose wife Cecily was executrix of his will in 1659.
If so,
Cecily would have been his second wife. Lancaster Co., VA records show
executors were "Cecily Montague, widow of Mr. Peter Montague, dec'd, and
Peter Montague her sonne-in-law" (stepson or son-by-law).
-----------
Note on Morris Fitzgerald: One of the daughters was apparently the
wife of a
Fitzgerald, and the mother of the grandchild Morris Fitzgerald
mentioned in
Alice Ivey’s 1708 will. A Morris “Fegarrell" had patented 200 acres
in Lower
Norfolk on 26 April 1670 in right of his wife Katherine the relict of
Roger
Howard. The will of "Morris Fitsgarrall" was proved 16 January 1678/9,
leaving his property to his wife Katherine. "Katheren Fitsgarrall" on the
same date left her plantation and dwelling to her "sonne in law Henry
Fitsgarrall" apparently meaning her stepson, Morris Fitzgerald’s son by a
prior wife. (Norfolk County Will Book 4, p. 42.)
----------
John Austin, the step-father of John Smoot, died in St. Mary's
County, his
will being proved on July 16, 1733. He bequeathed his "godson" Austin
Sanford Smoot the dwelling-plantation, but in the event of his death
during
minority then to his "sons-in-law" John Smoot and William Harrison.
His wife
Eleanor, however, was to enjoy the use of the dwelling until his godson
attained majority. The two sons-in-law were devised 1,000 acres of
land on
Aquia Creek in Stafford County, Virginia. His widow and John Smoot
administered on the estate. (Newman, Harry Wright. The Smoots of Maryland
and Virginia, p. 136) *a bit late for the ironclad period under
discussion.*
--------
--
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
-
Renia
Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited
JeffChipman wrote:
Again, as you have specified this thread, I will re-post something I
posted in the "son-in-law" thread:
The Family Historian's Enquire Within,
by F C Markwell and Pauline Saul,
Federation of Family History Societies,
2nd edition 1986.
ISBN: 0 907099 52 1
Page 63.
QUOTE
IN-LAW
This phrase had a different meaning in the mid 19th century from that
which it has today. In the 1851 census, for example, the term daughter
(or son)-in-law could mean "step-daughter" or "step-son", i.e. children
of the wife of the head of the household by a previous marriage. In
Dicken's "Pickwick Papers", Sam Weller addresses his step-mother as
"mother-in-law".
ENDQUOTE
You may say "oh, but this is Victorian England" not 17th century
Virginia". It is only in modern times that "son-in-law" means the
"husband of my daughter". It's an example of the dynamic English
language. For centuries before that, it had the various meanings we have
been discussing.
17th century Virginia was an English colony, so it mainly followed
English law. Anything pertaining to England, pertained to the English
colonies in America. And anything which pertained to one colony (or
state), pertained to the others. That is not to allow for cultural and
religious differences which emerged between states.
The term "son in law", was a legal term, meaning "son", regardless of
how the fellow came to be a "son": biologically; through adoption,
marriage, whatever.
The Maternity of Eliazabeth Dale, Pt. 2
I am constructing this thread because this discussion has spilled over
into many threads; people are telling me they have posted material
I'm having difficulty locating, etc.
Again, as you have specified this thread, I will re-post something I
posted in the "son-in-law" thread:
The Family Historian's Enquire Within,
by F C Markwell and Pauline Saul,
Federation of Family History Societies,
2nd edition 1986.
ISBN: 0 907099 52 1
Page 63.
QUOTE
IN-LAW
This phrase had a different meaning in the mid 19th century from that
which it has today. In the 1851 census, for example, the term daughter
(or son)-in-law could mean "step-daughter" or "step-son", i.e. children
of the wife of the head of the household by a previous marriage. In
Dicken's "Pickwick Papers", Sam Weller addresses his step-mother as
"mother-in-law".
ENDQUOTE
You may say "oh, but this is Victorian England" not 17th century
Virginia". It is only in modern times that "son-in-law" means the
"husband of my daughter". It's an example of the dynamic English
language. For centuries before that, it had the various meanings we have
been discussing.
17th century Virginia was an English colony, so it mainly followed
English law. Anything pertaining to England, pertained to the English
colonies in America. And anything which pertained to one colony (or
state), pertained to the others. That is not to allow for cultural and
religious differences which emerged between states.
The term "son in law", was a legal term, meaning "son", regardless of
how the fellow came to be a "son": biologically; through adoption,
marriage, whatever.
-
Brad Verity
Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited
Dear Jeff,
Comments interspersed.
JeffChipman wrote:
Why just Elizabeth? From what I've gathered, the maternity of none of
Dale's three daughters is certain.
Great - consolidation is always helpful.
I wouldn't describe the other American colonies and the parent country
of England as "foreign". Everyone was reading and writing in English.
[Well, except the American Indian tribes, but they don't seem to enter
into this.]
There may not be enough surviving wills and other documents from 17th
century Virginia to do any meaningful statistical analysis.
The will and the epitaph of Edward Dale have been posted, and you
should file those away for future reference.
I would certainly then expand the geography to include Leicestershire,
where Diana Skipwith and her brother Sir Grey Skipwith were born and
raised, and from whence they would have learned the terms, both legal
and colloquial, used to describe relatives.
Fine, but since Diana Skipwith could only ever be someone's "daughter"
and/or "daughter-in-law", and never someone's "son-in-law", you may
wish to still look at it. Per Douglas Richardson, PA3, p. 660: "She
[Diana] was a legatee in the 1629 will of her step-grandmother, Lady
Jane Skipwith." For those interested in this family, exactly how Lady
Jane refers to Diana in her will may prove illuminating. If she refers
to her as "my step-granddaughter", I will personally reimburse the cost
of obtaining a copy of the will.
Not everyone posting may have a position. My own position is that
there is insufficient evidence to conclude the maternity of any of
Edward Dale's daughters, though the likeliest possibility is that they
were by his one recorded wife, Diana Skipwith. However, since Dale's
own origins and early years are obscure, the possibility that they were
from a previous wife, or were illegitimate, cannot yet be eliminated.
[Anyone familiar enough with 17th-century Virginia, who can eliminate
the illegitimate possibility if the Dale daughters inherited, held
land, etc., would be a big help.]
Keeping an open mind to the evidence and examples provided you by other
genealogists on this newsgroup can help you to expand your base of
knowledge from one particular geographic area and time period to many
others.
Politeness is another way of achieving that goal.
This is a reasonable proposition upfront, but will prove extremely
time-consuming to prove. The reason is the incredible amount of data
collection involved. Let's start with the year 1674, since you already
know of one document that year that uses the term "son-in-law". You
now need to comb through other documents from, say 10 years before and
after, looking for the the term "son-in-law". Once a list of those is
made, you'll then need to go through and determine the exact
relationship of the "son-in-law".
Another tactic that may be more productive is to study the documents of
the Skipwith family, both in Leicestershire and Virginia, and determine
the terms used to describe relations.
I'll grant you the "now", but I'm holding off on the "then". At least
until you can provide 10 examples from 1650-1700 (I'll expand the
geography to include England) where "son in law" refers to a husband of
a biological daughter.
Your key word here is "interpretation". Frequency may be a factor you
use, but it is not a requirement, and others do not have to factor
frequency in at all in their interpretations. And the evidence, as it
exists at the moment, is not enough to determine whose interpretation
is accurate.
There are other problems with the pedigree. First and foremost, a lack
of known dates for this family make it impossible to come to any
conclusions with certainty.
I haven't looked at it before this post, so if any researching the
Skipwiths can fill in some of the blanks, it would be helpful for
everyone.
Birthdate of Diana Skipwith: baptized at Prestwold, Leicestershire 27
May 1621, per PA3. [From this we can conclude through biology that any
children she had were born by 1665.]
Birthdate of Edward Dale:
Date Diana Skipwith Emigrated From Leicestershire to Virginia: after
January 1649, which is when Charles I was executed. [Per PA3, Diana's
brother Sir Grey "after the death of King Charles I, went with several
other gentlemen to Virginia", and I'm assuming Diana went with, or
followed, him there. Diana turned age 28 in 1649, and Grey turned age
26. It's possible Diana, as Dale's wife, went to Virginia before her
brother, but Dale's epitaph seems to indicate he married Diana after
achieving Virginia offices.]
Marriage Date of Diana Skipwith and Edward Dale:
Birthdate of Katherine Dale:
Birthdate of Capt. Thomas Carter:
Marriage Date of Katherine Dale and Thomas Carter:
Birthdate of Mary Dale:
Birthdate of Daniel Harrison:
Marriage Date of Mary Dale and Daniel Harrison:
Birthdate of Humphrey Jones:
Marriage Date of Mary Dale and Humphrey Jones:
Birthdate of Elizabeth Dale:
Birthdate of William Rogers:
Marriage Date of Elizabeth Dale and William Rogers:
Death Date of Diana Skipwith Dale:
Death Date of Edward Dale: 20 February 1696, Lancaster County, Virginia
Date Sir Grey Skipwith Inherited the Baronetcy: after 1655, which is
when father Sir Henry Skipwith, 1st Baronet, died. But he was
succeeded by Grey's elder brother, another Sir Henry Skipwith, as 2nd
Baronet, so when did the younger Sir Henry die?
Betham's "Baronetage of England", Vol. 1 (1801), p. 273, mentions Diana
Skipwith and her sister Elizabeth, but does not name a husband for
either.
Related questions:
Did sister Elizabeth Skipwith marry and/or also emigrate to Virginia?
Who took possession of Prestwold, the family's Leicestershire seat,
since, per Betham, the 2nd Baronet died unmarried and Sir Grey remained
in Virginia? Were there lawsuits and/or correspondence between whoever
took possession of the English estates and the Skipwith family in
Virginia? If so, perhaps the children and descendants of the Skipwith
sisters (including Diana Dale) are mentioned and/or traced?
Not necessarily. VA parents could have referred to their sons-in-law
as "my daughter's husband" or "my son" or "the jackass" or simply by
name. Until a lot of documents are examined, we can't assume "sonne in
law" with enough certainty to say "must have been used" instead of
"could have been used".
We always should be careful of this.
This has nothing to do with anyone's opinion. If a phrase has multiple
meanings, each must be examined in context to determine which meaning
was intended. In the case of the term "son in law", as used by Diana
Dale in 1674 in reference to Daniel Harrison, the meaning "son of my
spouse", or "stepson" as we call it today, can be eliminated. That
leaves two possibilities: "husband of my biological daughter" or
"husband of my stepdaughter". Since nothing else in the 1674 document
is helpful in determining which of the two remaining definitions Diana
intended, other documents and evidence needs to be discovered and
examined. And it sounds like a lot of competent researchers are doing
just that.
Opinion is always interesting, but evidence and (even better) facts are
going to prove the most useful.
Cheers, ---------Brad
Comments interspersed.
JeffChipman wrote:
The Maternity of Eliazabeth Dale, Pt. 2
Why just Elizabeth? From what I've gathered, the maternity of none of
Dale's three daughters is certain.
I am constructing this thread because this discussion has spilled over
into many threads; people are telling me they have posted material
I'm having difficulty locating, etc.
Great - consolidation is always helpful.
This is what I'd like to do:
a. Confine the discussion to the VA/MD region. Please, no Maine census
returns, late medieval wills, 3 PCC wills, etc. Why? Because I'm
not disputing that the term "sonne in law" could have multiple
meanings, and I don't want to needlessly complicate matters by
introducing foreign material.
I wouldn't describe the other American colonies and the parent country
of England as "foreign". Everyone was reading and writing in English.
[Well, except the American Indian tribes, but they don't seem to enter
into this.]
I appreciate these posters' efforts to
put some evidence on the table, and I find it interesting, but my
ancestors lived in Lancaster Co., VA, so I'd like to confine the
evidence we peruse at least to the VA/MD area.
There may not be enough surviving wills and other documents from 17th
century Virginia to do any meaningful statistical analysis.
As far as I know,
nobody has presented any 17th century VA documents, but if they have,
could they re-post them here?
The will and the epitaph of Edward Dale have been posted, and you
should file those away for future reference.
b. Confine the evidence to the 17th century, or at least before large
numbers of Scots-Irish settled in VA. I'm not knocking the
Scots-Irish, I'm just trying to keep things as culturally simple as I
can. I know it's not perfect, but there you go.
I would certainly then expand the geography to include Leicestershire,
where Diana Skipwith and her brother Sir Grey Skipwith were born and
raised, and from whence they would have learned the terms, both legal
and colloquial, used to describe relatives.
c. Discuss the term "son in law." I know "daughter in law" is
a corresponding term for females, but I don't want to introduce
another variable, and since it may have had some different twists than
its male counterpart, I don't want that to become a side issue. I
will stipulate that it means much the same thing as "sonne in law"
for women, and leave it at that.
Fine, but since Diana Skipwith could only ever be someone's "daughter"
and/or "daughter-in-law", and never someone's "son-in-law", you may
wish to still look at it. Per Douglas Richardson, PA3, p. 660: "She
[Diana] was a legatee in the 1629 will of her step-grandmother, Lady
Jane Skipwith." For those interested in this family, exactly how Lady
Jane refers to Diana in her will may prove illuminating. If she refers
to her as "my step-granddaughter", I will personally reimburse the cost
of obtaining a copy of the will.
d. For reasons of clarity, I would like anybody posting to this thread
to state their position in two paragraphs or less,
Not everyone posting may have a position. My own position is that
there is insufficient evidence to conclude the maternity of any of
Edward Dale's daughters, though the likeliest possibility is that they
were by his one recorded wife, Diana Skipwith. However, since Dale's
own origins and early years are obscure, the possibility that they were
from a previous wife, or were illegitimate, cannot yet be eliminated.
[Anyone familiar enough with 17th-century Virginia, who can eliminate
the illegitimate possibility if the Dale daughters inherited, held
land, etc., would be a big help.]
unless you have a
deed or will to put into evidence, in which case an abstract and
summary of the finding and why the finding was made would be useful.
It is hard to judge anecdotal evidence such as "all genealogists
know", etc. That may be true, but I'm a genealogist and I might
not know, so it will eliminate derailing the discussion into a
pointless direction.
Keeping an open mind to the evidence and examples provided you by other
genealogists on this newsgroup can help you to expand your base of
knowledge from one particular geographic area and time period to many
others.
I know that's an arbitrary stipulation, and in
the view of some restrictive, but it will force people to choose their
words carefully, and prevent anybody, myself included, from hijacking
the thread.
Politeness is another way of achieving that goal.
My position, simply stated, is that the various uses of the term
"sonne in law" are not equal in frequency. In the ordinary course
of things, some occur more frequently than others.
This is a reasonable proposition upfront, but will prove extremely
time-consuming to prove. The reason is the incredible amount of data
collection involved. Let's start with the year 1674, since you already
know of one document that year that uses the term "son-in-law". You
now need to comb through other documents from, say 10 years before and
after, looking for the the term "son-in-law". Once a list of those is
made, you'll then need to go through and determine the exact
relationship of the "son-in-law".
Another tactic that may be more productive is to study the documents of
the Skipwith family, both in Leicestershire and Virginia, and determine
the terms used to describe relations.
The use of the term
as to mean "husband of my biological daughter" is the most common
meaning, then and now.
I'll grant you the "now", but I'm holding off on the "then". At least
until you can provide 10 examples from 1650-1700 (I'll expand the
geography to include England) where "son in law" refers to a husband of
a biological daughter.
Because it has not been demonstrated that the
usage "husband of my step-daughter" occurs with enough frequency to
pose a problem in the interpretation of the evidence,
Your key word here is "interpretation". Frequency may be a factor you
use, but it is not a requirement, and others do not have to factor
frequency in at all in their interpretations. And the evidence, as it
exists at the moment, is not enough to determine whose interpretation
is accurate.
I am not going to
reject a genealogical conclusion simply based upon its use in a
document, unless there are contra-indications. In other words, I am
going to "weigh" the value of this evidence according to the
frequency with which it meant certain things and whether or not there
are other problems with the pedigree.
There are other problems with the pedigree. First and foremost, a lack
of known dates for this family make it impossible to come to any
conclusions with certainty.
I haven't looked at it before this post, so if any researching the
Skipwiths can fill in some of the blanks, it would be helpful for
everyone.
Birthdate of Diana Skipwith: baptized at Prestwold, Leicestershire 27
May 1621, per PA3. [From this we can conclude through biology that any
children she had were born by 1665.]
Birthdate of Edward Dale:
Date Diana Skipwith Emigrated From Leicestershire to Virginia: after
January 1649, which is when Charles I was executed. [Per PA3, Diana's
brother Sir Grey "after the death of King Charles I, went with several
other gentlemen to Virginia", and I'm assuming Diana went with, or
followed, him there. Diana turned age 28 in 1649, and Grey turned age
26. It's possible Diana, as Dale's wife, went to Virginia before her
brother, but Dale's epitaph seems to indicate he married Diana after
achieving Virginia offices.]
Marriage Date of Diana Skipwith and Edward Dale:
Birthdate of Katherine Dale:
Birthdate of Capt. Thomas Carter:
Marriage Date of Katherine Dale and Thomas Carter:
Birthdate of Mary Dale:
Birthdate of Daniel Harrison:
Marriage Date of Mary Dale and Daniel Harrison:
Birthdate of Humphrey Jones:
Marriage Date of Mary Dale and Humphrey Jones:
Birthdate of Elizabeth Dale:
Birthdate of William Rogers:
Marriage Date of Elizabeth Dale and William Rogers:
Death Date of Diana Skipwith Dale:
Death Date of Edward Dale: 20 February 1696, Lancaster County, Virginia
Date Sir Grey Skipwith Inherited the Baronetcy: after 1655, which is
when father Sir Henry Skipwith, 1st Baronet, died. But he was
succeeded by Grey's elder brother, another Sir Henry Skipwith, as 2nd
Baronet, so when did the younger Sir Henry die?
Betham's "Baronetage of England", Vol. 1 (1801), p. 273, mentions Diana
Skipwith and her sister Elizabeth, but does not name a husband for
either.
Related questions:
Did sister Elizabeth Skipwith marry and/or also emigrate to Virginia?
Who took possession of Prestwold, the family's Leicestershire seat,
since, per Betham, the 2nd Baronet died unmarried and Sir Grey remained
in Virginia? Were there lawsuits and/or correspondence between whoever
took possession of the English estates and the Skipwith family in
Virginia? If so, perhaps the children and descendants of the Skipwith
sisters (including Diana Dale) are mentioned and/or traced?
Given that many VA families had daughters that married, the term
"sonne in law" must have been used in many documents.
Not necessarily. VA parents could have referred to their sons-in-law
as "my daughter's husband" or "my son" or "the jackass" or simply by
name. Until a lot of documents are examined, we can't assume "sonne in
law" with enough certainty to say "must have been used" instead of
"could have been used".
We therefore
should be careful that our arguments really mean something, since they
impact a great many research situations.
We always should be careful of this.
To require that a researcher
ferret out every possible meaning to satisfy somebody else's opinion
might not be justified.
This has nothing to do with anyone's opinion. If a phrase has multiple
meanings, each must be examined in context to determine which meaning
was intended. In the case of the term "son in law", as used by Diana
Dale in 1674 in reference to Daniel Harrison, the meaning "son of my
spouse", or "stepson" as we call it today, can be eliminated. That
leaves two possibilities: "husband of my biological daughter" or
"husband of my stepdaughter". Since nothing else in the 1674 document
is helpful in determining which of the two remaining definitions Diana
intended, other documents and evidence needs to be discovered and
examined. And it sounds like a lot of competent researchers are doing
just that.
That's it. I have to sign off until sometime tomorrow, but I am
hoping that enough people will contribute to this thread to give a wide
spectrum of opinion.
Opinion is always interesting, but evidence and (even better) facts are
going to prove the most useful.
Cheers, ---------Brad
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited
Brad Verity wrote:
<snip>
There is another interpretation of 'son-in-law'. As I haven't followed this
thread or know the family, I don't know whether it could apply. 'Son in law'
could mean "husband of the widow of my son". I have an example (actually
from my own ancestry!) that squeezes into the 1700 upper limit. This is from
Cumberland in England.
Joseph Pearson was the son of John Pearson, and died before his father.
Joseph died in 1687 and John in 1700.
Joseph had married Anne Wood; and, after his death, she remarried to Richard
Skelton.
Joseph Pearson wrote in his 1700 will: "I give to my son in law Richard
Skelton of Walton two shillings six pence in full of a Childs part or
portion".
As further proof, if you like, the will of Anne's father in 1702 mentioned
Joseph's two children (John and Jane) as his grandchildren 'John Pearson'
and 'Jane Pearson' and called his daughter 'Anne Skelton'.
Chris
<snip>
In the case of the term "son in law", as used by Diana
Dale in 1674 in reference to Daniel Harrison, the meaning "son of my
spouse", or "stepson" as we call it today, can be eliminated. That
leaves two possibilities: "husband of my biological daughter" or
"husband of my stepdaughter".
snip
There is another interpretation of 'son-in-law'. As I haven't followed this
thread or know the family, I don't know whether it could apply. 'Son in law'
could mean "husband of the widow of my son". I have an example (actually
from my own ancestry!) that squeezes into the 1700 upper limit. This is from
Cumberland in England.
Joseph Pearson was the son of John Pearson, and died before his father.
Joseph died in 1687 and John in 1700.
Joseph had married Anne Wood; and, after his death, she remarried to Richard
Skelton.
Joseph Pearson wrote in his 1700 will: "I give to my son in law Richard
Skelton of Walton two shillings six pence in full of a Childs part or
portion".
As further proof, if you like, the will of Anne's father in 1702 mentioned
Joseph's two children (John and Jane) as his grandchildren 'John Pearson'
and 'Jane Pearson' and called his daughter 'Anne Skelton'.
Chris
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited
JeffChipman wrote:
That is correct, but your weighting has to be tempered by
one fact.
Say you find "son-in-law" to mean husband of biological
daughter 95% of the time, and husband of step-daughter 5% of
the time. But if you discover that only 5% of daughters are
step-daughters, then in fact people referred to husbands of
daughters equally as "son-in-law" independant of whether
they were biological or step daughters. If you discover that
30% of daughters were step daughters, then you have evidence
that people were less likely to refer to husbands of step
daughters as "son-in-law" compared to referring to husbands
of biological daughters.
Doug McDonald
My position, simply stated, is that the various uses of the term
"sonne in law" are not equal in frequency. In the ordinary course
of things, some occur more frequently than others. The use of the term
as to mean "husband of my biological daughter" is the most common
meaning, then and now.
That is correct, but your weighting has to be tempered by
one fact.
Say you find "son-in-law" to mean husband of biological
daughter 95% of the time, and husband of step-daughter 5% of
the time. But if you discover that only 5% of daughters are
step-daughters, then in fact people referred to husbands of
daughters equally as "son-in-law" independant of whether
they were biological or step daughters. If you discover that
30% of daughters were step daughters, then you have evidence
that people were less likely to refer to husbands of step
daughters as "son-in-law" compared to referring to husbands
of biological daughters.
Doug McDonald
-
Gjest
Re: Maternity of Elizabeth Dale revisited
Doug McDonald wrote:
None of which will assist in coming to an "ironclad" conclusion in any
one specific case.
MAR
JeffChipman wrote:
My position, simply stated, is that the various uses of the term
"sonne in law" are not equal in frequency. In the ordinary course
of things, some occur more frequently than others. The use of the term
as to mean "husband of my biological daughter" is the most common
meaning, then and now.
That is correct, but your weighting has to be tempered by
one fact.
Say you find "son-in-law" to mean husband of biological
daughter 95% of the time, and husband of step-daughter 5% of
the time. But if you discover that only 5% of daughters are
step-daughters, then in fact people referred to husbands of
daughters equally as "son-in-law" independant of whether
they were biological or step daughters. If you discover that
30% of daughters were step daughters, then you have evidence
that people were less likely to refer to husbands of step
daughters as "son-in-law" compared to referring to husbands
of biological daughters.
None of which will assist in coming to an "ironclad" conclusion in any
one specific case.
MAR