Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" could
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
JeffChipman
Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" could
I being told that if someone challenges a pedigree for any reason,
stupid or not, that it is up to the pedigree-holder to defend that
challenge.
I have asked Nat Taylor to demonstrate that his challenge is serious.
In other words, how likely is it that it's the truth in any situation,
not just this one?
I am being told that I don't have the right to ask that of Nat. Just
because he says it might mean that is enough to question the line.
For his part, Nat and his friends have been unable to support his claim
that the term "sonne in law" could mean "husband of my step-daughter"
in even ONE instance, let alone a case in 17th century VA.
Nat and his friends have shown that "sonne in law" could mean
"step-son." So?Because "sonne in law" could mean "step-son" doesn't
mean that it ever meant "husband of my step-daughter." I have a 1789
Delaware will which uses the term "father-in-law" to mean
"step-father." I never questioned that usage.
Nat and his friends are upset. Damn right this is going into the
archives, and what people are going to see is that we have some pompous
asses that don't think they have to back up their statements with
anything.
JTC
stupid or not, that it is up to the pedigree-holder to defend that
challenge.
I have asked Nat Taylor to demonstrate that his challenge is serious.
In other words, how likely is it that it's the truth in any situation,
not just this one?
I am being told that I don't have the right to ask that of Nat. Just
because he says it might mean that is enough to question the line.
For his part, Nat and his friends have been unable to support his claim
that the term "sonne in law" could mean "husband of my step-daughter"
in even ONE instance, let alone a case in 17th century VA.
Nat and his friends have shown that "sonne in law" could mean
"step-son." So?Because "sonne in law" could mean "step-son" doesn't
mean that it ever meant "husband of my step-daughter." I have a 1789
Delaware will which uses the term "father-in-law" to mean
"step-father." I never questioned that usage.
Nat and his friends are upset. Damn right this is going into the
archives, and what people are going to see is that we have some pompous
asses that don't think they have to back up their statements with
anything.
JTC
-
JeffChipman
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
Let's see the argument of Nat and his friends for what it really is:
"We have demontrated through the use of colonial VA documents that the
phrase 'sonne in law' sometimes meant 'step-son.' Because 'sonne in
law' can have two meanings, it could also have more meanings. One of
those additional meanings could be 'husband of my step-daughter.' This
is sufficient to challnge the validity of the Skipwith line."
JTC
"We have demontrated through the use of colonial VA documents that the
phrase 'sonne in law' sometimes meant 'step-son.' Because 'sonne in
law' can have two meanings, it could also have more meanings. One of
those additional meanings could be 'husband of my step-daughter.' This
is sufficient to challnge the validity of the Skipwith line."
JTC
-
Vickie Elam White
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
Jeff,
This should fill the bill. Daniel Gaines married Margaret ____, widow of
Ralph
Rouzey. Her daughter Sarah married John Smyth and has a son named John
Smyth.
The 1682 (Old) Rappahannock Co. VA will of Daniel Gaines mentions [step]
grandson John Smyth, son-in-law John Smyth [husband of his step-dau] and
son-in-law [step-son] Ralph Rouzey:
"In the name of God Amen, I Daniell Gaines of the Parish of Sittenburne in
the County of Rappa: being in good health of body & sound & perfect memory
Praise be therefore given to Almighty God ...
Impris. ... debts pd ... Orphants of Colnll John Catlett deced to be paid
out of
the negroes and other goods that did belong to the sd Colnll Catlets Estate
the Negroes & Goods to be pd as they were appraised to me as may appear by
Inventory. Item ... Son, Bernard all my land that I now live upon to him &
his
heires lawfully begotten & that he shall not let sell or mortgage any part
or
parcell of the same so longe as his two Sisters, Margret & Mary or their
heires be alive. It is my will that if all my Children die without heires
of
their bodyes then my land to fall to my Grandson, John Smyth & to his heires
forever Item I give to my Daughter Mary the Mare colt that now sucks on
Mare Betty and all her encrease to her & her heires for Ever Item It is my
will
that the Mare Heyfer & hogs that I have given to my Grandson in Law John
Smith be & remaine to his proper use forever Item. It is my Will that the
first living Child that my Negro Cate doth bring be given to my Daughter
Margarett and to her heires for ever & if it lives to the age of three
yeares
to be in lieu of a man Servant, otherwise to be in no stead Item I do give
to my Son, Bernard my Silver hilted sword & Belt & my Seale Ring Item I
give
unto my deare & loveing Wife, Margret, one third of all my Estate in lieu of
her Dowre Item. My will is that the other two parts of my Estate be deviced
(divided) between my three children, Bernard, Margret and Mary and no part
of it be apprised but to be inventoried and delivered in kind Item. It is
my
will that my Daughter Margaret have a good feather bead & furniture at my
death in full of her part of my bedding Item It is my will that my Daughter
Mary have the use of so much housing & land as she needs soe long as she
continued unmarried Item. It is my will that as soone as it can a man
Servant be bought with Tobacco for my Daughter Margaret in part of he [sic
her] porcon Item. It is my will that my Wife, Son Bernard and Daughter
Mary
keep their shares together for their menteyance doing their best by their
Endeavours to Encrease the same as long as my Wife continues Widdow or so
land as either of my Children continue unmarried and at the day of Marriage
of my Wife or of either of my Children then my Childrens part to be
delivered them in kind Item My will is that my two Children Bernard & Mary
have as many things apeice out of my Estate as my Daughter Margaret hath had
already & the rest to be devided between them equally by my loveing Kinsman,
John Catlett & Sons in Law John Smyth and Ralph Rowzey and not to go to Law
one with the other Item It is my will that my Estate be inventoryed within
ten dayes after my decease Item I give to my deare & loving wife Twenty
Shilling to buy her a Mourning Ring to ware for my sake & to my two
Daughters each of them a Ring of Ten Shillings price Item It is my will that
if I die haveing no tobacco in my house that my Servants bee & remaine
together till they make a good crop of Arenoco Tobacco out of which my Wife
having first taken her Thirds then my Son Bernard & Daughter Mary have out
of the rest each of them as much as my Daughter Margarett hath already then
if any be remaining over & above to be devided equally between them all
three Item. It is my will that my Children have their Estate at the death
or day of Marriage of my Wife whether they be of age or not Item It is my
will the Children of Colnll John Catlett remaine with my Wife til they come
of age or not Item I
nominate & appont my dear and loveing Wife my sole Executrix of this my last
Will and testament. and Guardian to my Children so longe as she lives a
Widdow. IN Witness whereof I the sd Daniell Gaines to this my last Will &
Testamt do sett my hand & Seale this Eighteeenth of August in the yeare of
our Lord One thousand Six hundred Eighty & two. Signed Sealed & delivered
and declared preseence of
Wm Murrow Daniel Gaines
John Catlett
Wm Browne
Wee the Subscribers do hereby testifie and declare upon or Oathes wee did
see Capt Danll Gaines with menconed signe seale & deliver this ... Recorded
1 die 8bris Ano 1684"
Vickie Elam White
"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144423872.824848.236230@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
This should fill the bill. Daniel Gaines married Margaret ____, widow of
Ralph
Rouzey. Her daughter Sarah married John Smyth and has a son named John
Smyth.
The 1682 (Old) Rappahannock Co. VA will of Daniel Gaines mentions [step]
grandson John Smyth, son-in-law John Smyth [husband of his step-dau] and
son-in-law [step-son] Ralph Rouzey:
"In the name of God Amen, I Daniell Gaines of the Parish of Sittenburne in
the County of Rappa: being in good health of body & sound & perfect memory
Praise be therefore given to Almighty God ...
Impris. ... debts pd ... Orphants of Colnll John Catlett deced to be paid
out of
the negroes and other goods that did belong to the sd Colnll Catlets Estate
the Negroes & Goods to be pd as they were appraised to me as may appear by
Inventory. Item ... Son, Bernard all my land that I now live upon to him &
his
heires lawfully begotten & that he shall not let sell or mortgage any part
or
parcell of the same so longe as his two Sisters, Margret & Mary or their
heires be alive. It is my will that if all my Children die without heires
of
their bodyes then my land to fall to my Grandson, John Smyth & to his heires
forever Item I give to my Daughter Mary the Mare colt that now sucks on
Mare Betty and all her encrease to her & her heires for Ever Item It is my
will
that the Mare Heyfer & hogs that I have given to my Grandson in Law John
Smith be & remaine to his proper use forever Item. It is my Will that the
first living Child that my Negro Cate doth bring be given to my Daughter
Margarett and to her heires for ever & if it lives to the age of three
yeares
to be in lieu of a man Servant, otherwise to be in no stead Item I do give
to my Son, Bernard my Silver hilted sword & Belt & my Seale Ring Item I
give
unto my deare & loveing Wife, Margret, one third of all my Estate in lieu of
her Dowre Item. My will is that the other two parts of my Estate be deviced
(divided) between my three children, Bernard, Margret and Mary and no part
of it be apprised but to be inventoried and delivered in kind Item. It is
my
will that my Daughter Margaret have a good feather bead & furniture at my
death in full of her part of my bedding Item It is my will that my Daughter
Mary have the use of so much housing & land as she needs soe long as she
continued unmarried Item. It is my will that as soone as it can a man
Servant be bought with Tobacco for my Daughter Margaret in part of he [sic
her] porcon Item. It is my will that my Wife, Son Bernard and Daughter
Mary
keep their shares together for their menteyance doing their best by their
Endeavours to Encrease the same as long as my Wife continues Widdow or so
land as either of my Children continue unmarried and at the day of Marriage
of my Wife or of either of my Children then my Childrens part to be
delivered them in kind Item My will is that my two Children Bernard & Mary
have as many things apeice out of my Estate as my Daughter Margaret hath had
already & the rest to be devided between them equally by my loveing Kinsman,
John Catlett & Sons in Law John Smyth and Ralph Rowzey and not to go to Law
one with the other Item It is my will that my Estate be inventoryed within
ten dayes after my decease Item I give to my deare & loving wife Twenty
Shilling to buy her a Mourning Ring to ware for my sake & to my two
Daughters each of them a Ring of Ten Shillings price Item It is my will that
if I die haveing no tobacco in my house that my Servants bee & remaine
together till they make a good crop of Arenoco Tobacco out of which my Wife
having first taken her Thirds then my Son Bernard & Daughter Mary have out
of the rest each of them as much as my Daughter Margarett hath already then
if any be remaining over & above to be devided equally between them all
three Item. It is my will that my Children have their Estate at the death
or day of Marriage of my Wife whether they be of age or not Item It is my
will the Children of Colnll John Catlett remaine with my Wife til they come
of age or not Item I
nominate & appont my dear and loveing Wife my sole Executrix of this my last
Will and testament. and Guardian to my Children so longe as she lives a
Widdow. IN Witness whereof I the sd Daniell Gaines to this my last Will &
Testamt do sett my hand & Seale this Eighteeenth of August in the yeare of
our Lord One thousand Six hundred Eighty & two. Signed Sealed & delivered
and declared preseence of
Wm Murrow Daniel Gaines
John Catlett
Wm Browne
Wee the Subscribers do hereby testifie and declare upon or Oathes wee did
see Capt Danll Gaines with menconed signe seale & deliver this ... Recorded
1 die 8bris Ano 1684"
Vickie Elam White
"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144423872.824848.236230@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
I being told that if someone challenges a pedigree for any reason,
stupid or not, that it is up to the pedigree-holder to defend that
challenge.
I have asked Nat Taylor to demonstrate that his challenge is serious.
In other words, how likely is it that it's the truth in any situation,
not just this one?
I am being told that I don't have the right to ask that of Nat. Just
because he says it might mean that is enough to question the line.
For his part, Nat and his friends have been unable to support his claim
that the term "sonne in law" could mean "husband of my step-daughter"
in even ONE instance, let alone a case in 17th century VA.
Nat and his friends have shown that "sonne in law" could mean
"step-son." So?Because "sonne in law" could mean "step-son" doesn't
mean that it ever meant "husband of my step-daughter." I have a 1789
Delaware will which uses the term "father-in-law" to mean
"step-father." I never questioned that usage.
Nat and his friends are upset. Damn right this is going into the
archives, and what people are going to see is that we have some pompous
asses that don't think they have to back up their statements with
anything.
JTC
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
In article <g9wZf.20720$Mj.15787@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
<...>
<...>
<...>
*Dearest* Vickie,
Thanks!!
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
"Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
This should fill the bill. Daniel Gaines married Margaret ____, widow of
Ralph Rouzey. Her daughter Sarah married John Smyth and has a son named
John Smyth. The 1682 (Old) Rappahannock Co. VA will of Daniel Gaines
mentions [step] grandson John Smyth, son-in-law John Smyth [husband of
his step-dau] and son-in-law [step-son] Ralph Rouzey:
"In the name of God Amen, I Daniell Gaines of the Parish of Sittenburne in
the County of Rappa: being in good health of body & sound & perfect memory
Praise be therefore given to Almighty God ...
<...>
It is my will that if all my Children die without heires of
their bodyes then my land to fall to my Grandson, John Smyth & to his heires
forever
<...>
Item I give unto my deare & loveing Wife, Margret, one third of all my
Estate in lieu of her Dowre Item. My will is that the other two parts
of my Estate be deviced between my three children, Bernard, Margret
and Mary and no part of it be apprised but to be inventoried and delivered
in kind ...
<...>
Item My will is that my two Children Bernard & Mary
have as many things apeice out of my Estate as my Daughter Margaret hath had
already & the rest to be devided between them equally by my loveing Kinsman,
John Catlett & Sons in Law John Smyth and Ralph Rowzey ...
*Dearest* Vickie,
Thanks!!
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
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
JeffChipman wrote:
[. . . in a new thread, after whinging on that he had already created
too many threads to follow. The readers can draw their own conclusions.]
By the way, what makes you think any of us are friends of Nat - that we
could even stand to be in the same room with the tosser? This is
another debating parlor trick. If you can convince the casual reader
that just one person disagrees with you, and everyone else has been
drawn into the discussion solely in support of their chum, it looks like
a disagreement between you and one other poster, rather than what it is
in actuality, a disagreement between you and virtually every other
poster to the thread. It also, by suggesting friendship as the sole
motivation attempts, to diminish the opinions of everyone except Nat who
disagrees with you. All in all, it is a decent gambit for the
unscrupulous debater, hoping that the audience can be thus distracted
from the fact that he - you have no evidence,
I joined this thread because you said something inane. I continue to
post because you keep saying inane things. It has nothing to do with
Mr. Taylor.
taf
[. . . in a new thread, after whinging on that he had already created
too many threads to follow. The readers can draw their own conclusions.]
Let's see the argument of Nat and his friends for what it really is:
By the way, what makes you think any of us are friends of Nat - that we
could even stand to be in the same room with the tosser? This is
another debating parlor trick. If you can convince the casual reader
that just one person disagrees with you, and everyone else has been
drawn into the discussion solely in support of their chum, it looks like
a disagreement between you and one other poster, rather than what it is
in actuality, a disagreement between you and virtually every other
poster to the thread. It also, by suggesting friendship as the sole
motivation attempts, to diminish the opinions of everyone except Nat who
disagrees with you. All in all, it is a decent gambit for the
unscrupulous debater, hoping that the audience can be thus distracted
from the fact that he - you have no evidence,
I joined this thread because you said something inane. I continue to
post because you keep saying inane things. It has nothing to do with
Mr. Taylor.
taf
-
Nathaniel Taylor
Re: Does Nat Taylor ...
In article <e165eu$db7$1@eeyore.INS.cwru.edu>,
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
Dear Todd,
..... widda rubba hose. Nyah.
Oh, by the way, everyone's invited over to another barbecue as soon as
this guy's out the door.
Nat
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
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
By the way, what makes you think any of us are friends of Nat - that we
could even stand to be in the same room with the tosser?
Dear Todd,
..... widda rubba hose. Nyah.
Oh, by the way, everyone's invited over to another barbecue as soon as
this guy's out the door.
Nat
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
-
Brad Verity
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
Vickie Elam White wrote:
Dear Vickie,
You ... you Rock!!!
A 17th-century Virginia document in which the term 'son-in-law' means
not only 'step-son' but also 'husband of step-daughter' - in the same
sentence!
Finally a conclusion to this endless argument.
I've missed you posting on the newsgroup!
Cheers, --------Brad
This should fill the bill. Daniel Gaines married Margaret ____, widow of
Ralph
Rouzey. Her daughter Sarah married John Smyth and has a son named John
Smyth.
The 1682 (Old) Rappahannock Co. VA will of Daniel Gaines mentions [step]
grandson John Smyth, son-in-law John Smyth [husband of his step-dau] and
son-in-law [step-son] Ralph Rouzey:
Dear Vickie,
You ... you Rock!!!
A 17th-century Virginia document in which the term 'son-in-law' means
not only 'step-son' but also 'husband of step-daughter' - in the same
sentence!
Finally a conclusion to this endless argument.
I've missed you posting on the newsgroup!
Cheers, --------Brad
-
Vickie Elam White
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
Nat,
Glad to do it. And I for one, while not actually a friend, have
been corresponding with you on and off for about 10 years,
since our CompuServe days. You're an ok guy, IMHO. <G>
Seriously though, I believe that the 1681 will of Maj-Gen Abraham Wood
of VA refers to his Jones grandchildren in law, children of his
step-daughter
Margaret (Crews or Cruise) Jones. I don't have a copy of that one, though.
Vickie Elam White
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-E1071F.12515507042006@news.east.earthlink.net...
Glad to do it. And I for one, while not actually a friend, have
been corresponding with you on and off for about 10 years,
since our CompuServe days. You're an ok guy, IMHO. <G>
Seriously though, I believe that the 1681 will of Maj-Gen Abraham Wood
of VA refers to his Jones grandchildren in law, children of his
step-daughter
Margaret (Crews or Cruise) Jones. I don't have a copy of that one, though.
Vickie Elam White
"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-E1071F.12515507042006@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <g9wZf.20720$Mj.15787@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"Vickie Elam White" <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
This should fill the bill. Daniel Gaines married Margaret ____, widow
of
Ralph Rouzey. Her daughter Sarah married John Smyth and has a son named
John Smyth. The 1682 (Old) Rappahannock Co. VA will of Daniel Gaines
mentions [step] grandson John Smyth, son-in-law John Smyth [husband of
his step-dau] and son-in-law [step-son] Ralph Rouzey:
"In the name of God Amen, I Daniell Gaines of the Parish of Sittenburne
in
the County of Rappa: being in good health of body & sound & perfect
memory
Praise be therefore given to Almighty God ...
...
It is my will that if all my Children die without heires of
their bodyes then my land to fall to my Grandson, John Smyth & to his
heires
forever
...
Item I give unto my deare & loveing Wife, Margret, one third of all my
Estate in lieu of her Dowre Item. My will is that the other two parts
of my Estate be deviced between my three children, Bernard, Margret
and Mary and no part of it be apprised but to be inventoried and
delivered
in kind ...
...
Item My will is that my two Children Bernard & Mary
have as many things apeice out of my Estate as my Daughter Margaret hath
had
already & the rest to be devided between them equally by my loveing
Kinsman,
John Catlett & Sons in Law John Smyth and Ralph Rowzey ...
*Dearest* Vickie,
Thanks!!
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
-
Vickie Elam White
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
Brad,
Aw shucks! You make me blush!
Didja notice how he even referred to his [step] grandson as grandson in law
once! Can't get more "made to order" than that! <G>
Vickie Elam White
"Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144429352.314707.254310@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Aw shucks! You make me blush!
Didja notice how he even referred to his [step] grandson as grandson in law
once! Can't get more "made to order" than that! <G>
Vickie Elam White
"Brad Verity" <royaldescent@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144429352.314707.254310@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Vickie Elam White wrote:
This should fill the bill. Daniel Gaines married Margaret ____, widow
of
Ralph
Rouzey. Her daughter Sarah married John Smyth and has a son named John
Smyth.
The 1682 (Old) Rappahannock Co. VA will of Daniel Gaines mentions [step]
grandson John Smyth, son-in-law John Smyth [husband of his step-dau] and
son-in-law [step-son] Ralph Rouzey:
Dear Vickie,
You ... you Rock!!!
A 17th-century Virginia document in which the term 'son-in-law' means
not only 'step-son' but also 'husband of step-daughter' - in the same
sentence!
Finally a conclusion to this endless argument.
I've missed you posting on the newsgroup!
Cheers, --------Brad
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
JeffChipman wrote:
No, you were told that if you want to draw "iron-clad" conclusions based
on the restrictive interpretation of a broad term as having only the
restrictive meaning, you have to provide evidence that this
simplification is justified.
Jeff primary among them, because, we are told, Virginia is so sad that
the ordinary rules shouldn't apply.
As to this "Virginia needs special treatment" does 17th century Virginia
really have less documentation than 17th century Alsace, or Baden or
Osnabruck? Or for that matter 18th century Vermont or Somerset? There
appear to be two assumptions underlying this "it wouldn't be fair to
hold them to the same standards". First it appears to be based on the
assumption that everywhere else in the world, vital records abound for
all time periods, and putting together extensive pedigreed for anyone is
simply an afternoon's work. Here is a clue, Jeff, 17th century vital
records are the exception, rather than the rule, and a lot of places
don't have the deeds or wills left to them either. This first
assumption is just plain wrong. The second assumption is that it is the
right of genealogist to be able to make pedigrees, rules of evidence be
damned - that you are unfairly depriving people if you don't let them
trace back to time immemorial, even if the surviving records do not
allow this to be done truthfully. I rather doubt "Nat and all his
friends" (apparently a phrase that has come to mean the genealogy
community as a whole with the exception of Jeff) would agree with this
assessment.
taf
I being told that if someone challenges a pedigree for any reason,
stupid or not, that it is up to the pedigree-holder to defend that
challenge.
No, you were told that if you want to draw "iron-clad" conclusions based
on the restrictive interpretation of a broad term as having only the
restrictive meaning, you have to provide evidence that this
simplification is justified.
Damn right this is going into the
archives, and what people are going to see is that we have some pompous
asses that don't think they have to back up their statements with
anything.
Jeff primary among them, because, we are told, Virginia is so sad that
the ordinary rules shouldn't apply.
As to this "Virginia needs special treatment" does 17th century Virginia
really have less documentation than 17th century Alsace, or Baden or
Osnabruck? Or for that matter 18th century Vermont or Somerset? There
appear to be two assumptions underlying this "it wouldn't be fair to
hold them to the same standards". First it appears to be based on the
assumption that everywhere else in the world, vital records abound for
all time periods, and putting together extensive pedigreed for anyone is
simply an afternoon's work. Here is a clue, Jeff, 17th century vital
records are the exception, rather than the rule, and a lot of places
don't have the deeds or wills left to them either. This first
assumption is just plain wrong. The second assumption is that it is the
right of genealogist to be able to make pedigrees, rules of evidence be
damned - that you are unfairly depriving people if you don't let them
trace back to time immemorial, even if the surviving records do not
allow this to be done truthfully. I rather doubt "Nat and all his
friends" (apparently a phrase that has come to mean the genealogy
community as a whole with the exception of Jeff) would agree with this
assessment.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
Vickie Elam White schrieb:
Vickie
Excellent find - not surprised, but delighted.
Jeff? Jeff? Are you there, Jeff?
(Better post it a couple dozen times in several new threads, or he
might miss it again.)
Regards
Michael
Jeff,
This should fill the bill. Daniel Gaines married Margaret ____, widow of
Ralph
Rouzey. Her daughter Sarah married John Smyth and has a son named John
Smyth.
The 1682 (Old) Rappahannock Co. VA will of Daniel Gaines mentions [step]
grandson John Smyth, son-in-law John Smyth [husband of his step-dau] and
son-in-law [step-son] Ralph Rouzey:
Vickie
Excellent find - not surprised, but delighted.
Jeff? Jeff? Are you there, Jeff?
(Better post it a couple dozen times in several new threads, or he
might miss it again.)
Regards
Michael
-
Mark B
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
Yes, but you have yet to PROVE that this is the
meaning that Diana Dale had in mind when she used the
term!
Sorry--just yanking chains and anticipating future
lines of "reasoning." It's amazing to me that so much
effort and bandwidth have gone into resolving a
dispute that almost no one disputed and one that would
have surely been avoided entirely if the original
poster had not had such an aversion to the word
"probable."
Mark Briscoe
--- Vickie Elam White <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
meaning that Diana Dale had in mind when she used the
term!
Sorry--just yanking chains and anticipating future
lines of "reasoning." It's amazing to me that so much
effort and bandwidth have gone into resolving a
dispute that almost no one disputed and one that would
have surely been avoided entirely if the original
poster had not had such an aversion to the word
"probable."
Mark Briscoe
--- Vickie Elam White <VEWhite@nycap.rr.com> wrote:
This should fill the bill. Daniel Gaines
married Margaret ____, widow
of
Ralph Rouzey. Her daughter Sarah married John
Smyth and has a son named
John Smyth. The 1682 (Old) Rappahannock Co. VA
will of Daniel Gaines
mentions [step] grandson John Smyth, son-in-law
John Smyth [husband of
his step-dau] and son-in-law [step-son] Ralph
Rouzey:
"In the name of God Amen, I Daniell Gaines of
the Parish of Sittenburne
in
the County of Rappa: being in good health of
body & sound & perfect
memory
Praise be therefore given to Almighty God ...
...
It is my will that if all my Children die
without heires of
their bodyes then my land to fall to my
Grandson, John Smyth & to his
heires
forever
...
Item I give unto my deare & loveing Wife,
Margret, one third of all my
Estate in lieu of her Dowre Item. My will is
that the other two parts
of my Estate be deviced between my three
children, Bernard, Margret
and Mary and no part of it be apprised but to be
inventoried and
delivered
in kind ...
...
Item My will is that my two Children Bernard &
Mary
have as many things apeice out of my Estate as
my Daughter Margaret hath
had
already & the rest to be devided between them
equally by my loveing
Kinsman,
John Catlett & Sons in Law John Smyth and Ralph
Rowzey ...
*Dearest* Vickie,
Thanks!!
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
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Renia
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
Well done, Vickie. But he will probably profess not to see it, or claim
it's the wrong year, or the wrong part of VA.
Vickie Elam White wrote:
it's the wrong year, or the wrong part of VA.
Vickie Elam White wrote:
Jeff,
This should fill the bill. Daniel Gaines married Margaret ____, widow of
Ralph
Rouzey. Her daughter Sarah married John Smyth and has a son named John
Smyth.
The 1682 (Old) Rappahannock Co. VA will of Daniel Gaines mentions [step]
grandson John Smyth, son-in-law John Smyth [husband of his step-dau] and
son-in-law [step-son] Ralph Rouzey:
"In the name of God Amen, I Daniell Gaines of the Parish of Sittenburne in
the County of Rappa: being in good health of body & sound & perfect memory
Praise be therefore given to Almighty God ...
Impris. ... debts pd ... Orphants of Colnll John Catlett deced to be paid
out of
the negroes and other goods that did belong to the sd Colnll Catlets Estate
the Negroes & Goods to be pd as they were appraised to me as may appear by
Inventory. Item ... Son, Bernard all my land that I now live upon to him &
his
heires lawfully begotten & that he shall not let sell or mortgage any part
or
parcell of the same so longe as his two Sisters, Margret & Mary or their
heires be alive. It is my will that if all my Children die without heires
of
their bodyes then my land to fall to my Grandson, John Smyth & to his heires
forever Item I give to my Daughter Mary the Mare colt that now sucks on
Mare Betty and all her encrease to her & her heires for Ever Item It is my
will
that the Mare Heyfer & hogs that I have given to my Grandson in Law John
Smith be & remaine to his proper use forever Item. It is my Will that the
first living Child that my Negro Cate doth bring be given to my Daughter
Margarett and to her heires for ever & if it lives to the age of three
yeares
to be in lieu of a man Servant, otherwise to be in no stead Item I do give
to my Son, Bernard my Silver hilted sword & Belt & my Seale Ring Item I
give
unto my deare & loveing Wife, Margret, one third of all my Estate in lieu of
her Dowre Item. My will is that the other two parts of my Estate be deviced
(divided) between my three children, Bernard, Margret and Mary and no part
of it be apprised but to be inventoried and delivered in kind Item. It is
my
will that my Daughter Margaret have a good feather bead & furniture at my
death in full of her part of my bedding Item It is my will that my Daughter
Mary have the use of so much housing & land as she needs soe long as she
continued unmarried Item. It is my will that as soone as it can a man
Servant be bought with Tobacco for my Daughter Margaret in part of he [sic
her] porcon Item. It is my will that my Wife, Son Bernard and Daughter
Mary
keep their shares together for their menteyance doing their best by their
Endeavours to Encrease the same as long as my Wife continues Widdow or so
land as either of my Children continue unmarried and at the day of Marriage
of my Wife or of either of my Children then my Childrens part to be
delivered them in kind Item My will is that my two Children Bernard & Mary
have as many things apeice out of my Estate as my Daughter Margaret hath had
already & the rest to be devided between them equally by my loveing Kinsman,
John Catlett & Sons in Law John Smyth and Ralph Rowzey and not to go to Law
one with the other Item It is my will that my Estate be inventoryed within
ten dayes after my decease Item I give to my deare & loving wife Twenty
Shilling to buy her a Mourning Ring to ware for my sake & to my two
Daughters each of them a Ring of Ten Shillings price Item It is my will that
if I die haveing no tobacco in my house that my Servants bee & remaine
together till they make a good crop of Arenoco Tobacco out of which my Wife
having first taken her Thirds then my Son Bernard & Daughter Mary have out
of the rest each of them as much as my Daughter Margarett hath already then
if any be remaining over & above to be devided equally between them all
three Item. It is my will that my Children have their Estate at the death
or day of Marriage of my Wife whether they be of age or not Item It is my
will the Children of Colnll John Catlett remaine with my Wife til they come
of age or not Item I
nominate & appont my dear and loveing Wife my sole Executrix of this my last
Will and testament. and Guardian to my Children so longe as she lives a
Widdow. IN Witness whereof I the sd Daniell Gaines to this my last Will &
Testamt do sett my hand & Seale this Eighteeenth of August in the yeare of
our Lord One thousand Six hundred Eighty & two. Signed Sealed & delivered
and declared preseence of
Wm Murrow Daniel Gaines
John Catlett
Wm Browne
Wee the Subscribers do hereby testifie and declare upon or Oathes wee did
see Capt Danll Gaines with menconed signe seale & deliver this ... Recorded
1 die 8bris Ano 1684"
Vickie Elam White
"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144423872.824848.236230@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
I being told that if someone challenges a pedigree for any reason,
stupid or not, that it is up to the pedigree-holder to defend that
challenge.
I have asked Nat Taylor to demonstrate that his challenge is serious.
In other words, how likely is it that it's the truth in any situation,
not just this one?
I am being told that I don't have the right to ask that of Nat. Just
because he says it might mean that is enough to question the line.
For his part, Nat and his friends have been unable to support his claim
that the term "sonne in law" could mean "husband of my step-daughter"
in even ONE instance, let alone a case in 17th century VA.
Nat and his friends have shown that "sonne in law" could mean
"step-son." So?Because "sonne in law" could mean "step-son" doesn't
mean that it ever meant "husband of my step-daughter." I have a 1789
Delaware will which uses the term "father-in-law" to mean
"step-father." I never questioned that usage.
Nat and his friends are upset. Damn right this is going into the
archives, and what people are going to see is that we have some pompous
asses that don't think they have to back up their statements with
anything.
JTC
-
JeffChipman
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
I printed out the Gaines' will and went over it a couple of times.
Evidently you have other documents that shine a light on exactly who
these people were. Strictly on the will itself, it establishes that
John Smyth, son of John Smyth, was not Daniel Gaines' biological
grandson. Smyth could have been married to a daughter of Gaines, who
was deceased, and had no children by her, but had this child by a
previous marriage, and that's how this "grandson in law" came into the
family. I'm not calling you a liar, and I'm not saying that's the
case, but your example would be more powerful if you cited what these
other documents were and quoted passages from them that demonstrate
your point. This is the first evidence I've seen that actually deals
with the case at hand.
If I understand the case correctly, you're saying that Magaret (--)
Gaines, widow of Daniel Gaines, was married previously to Ralph Rouzey,
and by him had at least two children: Sarah Rouzey who m. John Smyth,
and Ralph Rouzey. Apparently at the time of the will none of Gaines'
own children were married. I also noted that Daniel Gaines called this
John Smyth his "grandson" in one passage, and "grandson in law" in
another. It would be nice to know something of the family of Magaret
(--) Gaines, but I know that can be difficult to establish with records
at hand in colonial VA, so I'm not going to press you for it.
This makes an interesting point. Aside from this one instance, the
other examples of "sonne in law" have meant "step-son." From that it
seems to be the most common secondary meaning of "sonne in law". In
all the cases that have been cited, there were other documents that
clarified the use of the term. This could mean that when the term was
used in a secondary sense, the people involved took pains to "set the
record straight." I have suggested in the past that there could be
sound legal reasons to do so. Stratton has said that "now wife" did
not always mean that a man had a previous wife, but was sometimes used
to clarify a legal situation. I'm not going to start another thread on
that, so don't take me to task for it. In the Skipwith case there is
not a shred of evidence that "sonne in law" meant anything but , even
though Dale was a wealthy man and large amounts of property were
involved.
I don't know the how significant Vickie's example is in in determining
how much of a problem an alternative meaning of this term is as a
practical matter, but I thank her for it, and if she would, please post
a little more stuff. Don't take that as meaning your example is of no
value, just that it seems a complicated situation and I would like to
make sure I understand it.
My other point is that Gaines also called John Smyth just "his
grandson." I think we are on a slippery slope here. He used the term
"grandson in law" later in the document, but it raises the possibility
that other people did not take pains and there are documents in which
"grandson" doesn't mean a blood relationship. If you say "that would
never happen," you are weighing evidence and making a value judgement,
just like Dr. Greene did when he told me the Dale epitaph was not good
evidence in the Katherine Carter affair. This document opens the door
to that possibility. So be careful when you start arguing over the
meanings of terms. I believe that the use of "sonne in law" to mean
"husband of my step-daughter" is rare, and that if it is used in a
subsidiary sense, it will be probably picked up in some other document.
Anyway, I am glad to see some actual evidence surfacing, and I would
like to see more.
JTC
Evidently you have other documents that shine a light on exactly who
these people were. Strictly on the will itself, it establishes that
John Smyth, son of John Smyth, was not Daniel Gaines' biological
grandson. Smyth could have been married to a daughter of Gaines, who
was deceased, and had no children by her, but had this child by a
previous marriage, and that's how this "grandson in law" came into the
family. I'm not calling you a liar, and I'm not saying that's the
case, but your example would be more powerful if you cited what these
other documents were and quoted passages from them that demonstrate
your point. This is the first evidence I've seen that actually deals
with the case at hand.
If I understand the case correctly, you're saying that Magaret (--)
Gaines, widow of Daniel Gaines, was married previously to Ralph Rouzey,
and by him had at least two children: Sarah Rouzey who m. John Smyth,
and Ralph Rouzey. Apparently at the time of the will none of Gaines'
own children were married. I also noted that Daniel Gaines called this
John Smyth his "grandson" in one passage, and "grandson in law" in
another. It would be nice to know something of the family of Magaret
(--) Gaines, but I know that can be difficult to establish with records
at hand in colonial VA, so I'm not going to press you for it.
This makes an interesting point. Aside from this one instance, the
other examples of "sonne in law" have meant "step-son." From that it
seems to be the most common secondary meaning of "sonne in law". In
all the cases that have been cited, there were other documents that
clarified the use of the term. This could mean that when the term was
used in a secondary sense, the people involved took pains to "set the
record straight." I have suggested in the past that there could be
sound legal reasons to do so. Stratton has said that "now wife" did
not always mean that a man had a previous wife, but was sometimes used
to clarify a legal situation. I'm not going to start another thread on
that, so don't take me to task for it. In the Skipwith case there is
not a shred of evidence that "sonne in law" meant anything but , even
though Dale was a wealthy man and large amounts of property were
involved.
I don't know the how significant Vickie's example is in in determining
how much of a problem an alternative meaning of this term is as a
practical matter, but I thank her for it, and if she would, please post
a little more stuff. Don't take that as meaning your example is of no
value, just that it seems a complicated situation and I would like to
make sure I understand it.
My other point is that Gaines also called John Smyth just "his
grandson." I think we are on a slippery slope here. He used the term
"grandson in law" later in the document, but it raises the possibility
that other people did not take pains and there are documents in which
"grandson" doesn't mean a blood relationship. If you say "that would
never happen," you are weighing evidence and making a value judgement,
just like Dr. Greene did when he told me the Dale epitaph was not good
evidence in the Katherine Carter affair. This document opens the door
to that possibility. So be careful when you start arguing over the
meanings of terms. I believe that the use of "sonne in law" to mean
"husband of my step-daughter" is rare, and that if it is used in a
subsidiary sense, it will be probably picked up in some other document.
Anyway, I am glad to see some actual evidence surfacing, and I would
like to see more.
JTC
-
Gjest
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
JeffChipman schrieb:
Just like you did, when you shrieked at Nat, Todd et al ad nauseum to
say that "son-in-law" meant husband of one's daughter, not husband of
one's stepdaughter.
I had to read that lecture several times before I could take it in,
because the gall of it is simply breath-taking. Remember: this group
is archived, so anyone can see exactly what you have said in the past
(e.g. when you abused various of us for telling you that terms could
have more than one meaning).
I believe that the use of "sonne in law" to mean
No doubt you are still working on your apologies to Nat, Todd etc etc
etc
MA-R
I printed out the Gaines' will and went over it a couple of times.
Evidently you have other documents that shine a light on exactly who
these people were. Strictly on the will itself, it establishes that
John Smyth, son of John Smyth, was not Daniel Gaines' biological
grandson. Smyth could have been married to a daughter of Gaines, who
was deceased, and had no children by her, but had this child by a
previous marriage, and that's how this "grandson in law" came into the
family. I'm not calling you a liar, and I'm not saying that's the
case, but your example would be more powerful if you cited what these
other documents were and quoted passages from them that demonstrate
your point. This is the first evidence I've seen that actually deals
with the case at hand.
If I understand the case correctly, you're saying that Magaret (--)
Gaines, widow of Daniel Gaines, was married previously to Ralph Rouzey,
and by him had at least two children: Sarah Rouzey who m. John Smyth,
and Ralph Rouzey. Apparently at the time of the will none of Gaines'
own children were married. I also noted that Daniel Gaines called this
John Smyth his "grandson" in one passage, and "grandson in law" in
another. It would be nice to know something of the family of Magaret
(--) Gaines, but I know that can be difficult to establish with records
at hand in colonial VA, so I'm not going to press you for it.
This makes an interesting point. Aside from this one instance, the
other examples of "sonne in law" have meant "step-son." From that it
seems to be the most common secondary meaning of "sonne in law". In
all the cases that have been cited, there were other documents that
clarified the use of the term. This could mean that when the term was
used in a secondary sense, the people involved took pains to "set the
record straight." I have suggested in the past that there could be
sound legal reasons to do so. Stratton has said that "now wife" did
not always mean that a man had a previous wife, but was sometimes used
to clarify a legal situation. I'm not going to start another thread on
that, so don't take me to task for it. In the Skipwith case there is
not a shred of evidence that "sonne in law" meant anything but , even
though Dale was a wealthy man and large amounts of property were
involved.
I don't know the how significant Vickie's example is in in determining
how much of a problem an alternative meaning of this term is as a
practical matter, but I thank her for it, and if she would, please post
a little more stuff. Don't take that as meaning your example is of no
value, just that it seems a complicated situation and I would like to
make sure I understand it.
My other point is that Gaines also called John Smyth just "his
grandson." I think we are on a slippery slope here. He used the term
"grandson in law" later in the document, but it raises the possibility
that other people did not take pains and there are documents in which
"grandson" doesn't mean a blood relationship. If you say "that would
never happen," you are weighing evidence and making a value judgement,
just like Dr. Greene did
Just like you did, when you shrieked at Nat, Todd et al ad nauseum to
say that "son-in-law" meant husband of one's daughter, not husband of
one's stepdaughter.
when he told me the Dale epitaph was not good
evidence in the Katherine Carter affair. This document opens the door
to that possibility. So be careful when you start arguing over the
meanings of terms.
I had to read that lecture several times before I could take it in,
because the gall of it is simply breath-taking. Remember: this group
is archived, so anyone can see exactly what you have said in the past
(e.g. when you abused various of us for telling you that terms could
have more than one meaning).
I believe that the use of "sonne in law" to mean
"husband of my step-daughter" is rare, and that if it is used in a
subsidiary sense, it will be probably picked up in some other document.
Anyway, I am glad to see some actual evidence surfacing, and I would
like to see more.
No doubt you are still working on your apologies to Nat, Todd etc etc
etc
MA-R
-
JeffChipman
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
Todd, you are a jerk. If you think I'm going to apologize to you,
you've got rocks in your hea. Who do you think you are?
In post 12 of this thread (which apparently you can't find, along with
your ass), I mentioned my reaction to the Gaines will, and said while
it looked interesting, more documentation was needed to demonstrate the
relationships. The will itself is not enough to do that. I then
presented my understanding of the relationships and asked Vickie if
that's what was intended. You are poster 16 in this thread and Vickie
has yet to do that. I'm assuming that she will in one way or another.
This reminds me a great deal about a debate years ago over "the
infidelity factor." Someone pointed out that occasionally wives would
pass off a lover's son as being her husband's. There would be no
records to indicate it had happened. How serious the matter was
depended on what set of statistics you used, but it could indicate that
more than 20 per cent of somebody's lines were false. I don't want to
reopen that debate.
I will say this, and it's nothing approaching a "scientific" statement,
that a greater problem than variations in the term "sonne in law" is a
man calling a "step-son" "son." He marries a widow with small
children, and he loves his wife and her children, and they become
"his." There is no record at all to show that those children are not
his.
You conveniently buried in your rancid post the fact that in this will
Gaines called the same person "grandson" and "grandson-in-law." That's
telling me that sometimes the term "grandson" can mean "grandson in
law." You not going to comment on that because it opens the door to
your intellectual bankruptcy. So--I'm going to start a thread
entitled: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law. I'm going to shame
Vickie into posting the rest of her documentation and invite comments
on that subject.
The "old guard" of this newsgroup are peddling the notions that their
genealogical standards are "better" than mine, and if they produce one
incomplete example I'm supposed to start apologizing. This is exactly
what they're saying. You're an idiot.
Here's what a man really considered to be a prominent genealogist has
to say about standards:
"The paradox about standards is that the word implies objectivity, when
in fact the standards in genealogy ... are essentially subjective. I
have seen so many cases of people trying to quantify genealogical
standards."
My philosophy is that I'm going to try to unearth every pertinent
record. I'm not going to obsess over something I don't think is that
big a deal, and that the people involved would have clarified for legal
or other reasons in those cases. I'm not going to hound somebody who
has poured a great deal of time into their research so that they will
have to produce some document that I've told them is essential to
satisfy my standards.
I have no problem at all with you or anyone else applying your
standards to a given case, but if you come to me and try to force them
on me, I'm going to run you out of town on a rail. Got it?
I don't have a problem with the archives. Why should I? Is that
supposed to intimidate me? I have the right to raise a question with
anybody in this newsgroup. I don't care if other people read it.
So, Todd, since you have opened the door on so many things, what are
your genealogical standards, how do you apply them, and why do you
think I should? And don't hand me this crap as if you are a
self-appointed moderator.
JTC
you've got rocks in your hea. Who do you think you are?
In post 12 of this thread (which apparently you can't find, along with
your ass), I mentioned my reaction to the Gaines will, and said while
it looked interesting, more documentation was needed to demonstrate the
relationships. The will itself is not enough to do that. I then
presented my understanding of the relationships and asked Vickie if
that's what was intended. You are poster 16 in this thread and Vickie
has yet to do that. I'm assuming that she will in one way or another.
This reminds me a great deal about a debate years ago over "the
infidelity factor." Someone pointed out that occasionally wives would
pass off a lover's son as being her husband's. There would be no
records to indicate it had happened. How serious the matter was
depended on what set of statistics you used, but it could indicate that
more than 20 per cent of somebody's lines were false. I don't want to
reopen that debate.
I will say this, and it's nothing approaching a "scientific" statement,
that a greater problem than variations in the term "sonne in law" is a
man calling a "step-son" "son." He marries a widow with small
children, and he loves his wife and her children, and they become
"his." There is no record at all to show that those children are not
his.
You conveniently buried in your rancid post the fact that in this will
Gaines called the same person "grandson" and "grandson-in-law." That's
telling me that sometimes the term "grandson" can mean "grandson in
law." You not going to comment on that because it opens the door to
your intellectual bankruptcy. So--I'm going to start a thread
entitled: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law. I'm going to shame
Vickie into posting the rest of her documentation and invite comments
on that subject.
The "old guard" of this newsgroup are peddling the notions that their
genealogical standards are "better" than mine, and if they produce one
incomplete example I'm supposed to start apologizing. This is exactly
what they're saying. You're an idiot.
Here's what a man really considered to be a prominent genealogist has
to say about standards:
"The paradox about standards is that the word implies objectivity, when
in fact the standards in genealogy ... are essentially subjective. I
have seen so many cases of people trying to quantify genealogical
standards."
My philosophy is that I'm going to try to unearth every pertinent
record. I'm not going to obsess over something I don't think is that
big a deal, and that the people involved would have clarified for legal
or other reasons in those cases. I'm not going to hound somebody who
has poured a great deal of time into their research so that they will
have to produce some document that I've told them is essential to
satisfy my standards.
I have no problem at all with you or anyone else applying your
standards to a given case, but if you come to me and try to force them
on me, I'm going to run you out of town on a rail. Got it?
I don't have a problem with the archives. Why should I? Is that
supposed to intimidate me? I have the right to raise a question with
anybody in this newsgroup. I don't care if other people read it.
So, Todd, since you have opened the door on so many things, what are
your genealogical standards, how do you apply them, and why do you
think I should? And don't hand me this crap as if you are a
self-appointed moderator.
JTC
-
R. Battle
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, JeffChipman wrote:
<snip>
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between these two statements from
the same message.
-Robert Battle
<snip>
I'm going to shame
Vickie into posting the rest of her documentation and invite comments
on that subject.
snip
I'm not going to hound somebody who
has poured a great deal of time into their research so that they will
have to produce some document that I've told them is essential to
satisfy my standards.
snip
There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between these two statements from
the same message.
-Robert Battle
-
Vickie Elam White
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
Jeff,
You're not going to shame me into anything. If you are so interested
in finding out the rest of the story, it is too complicated for me to type
up and post here. It took me years to find it all. But I will tell you
a good place to start -- "The Virginia Genealogist", 2003 (October
or so, I think) had an article by Margaret Admundson about Daniel
Gaines. Then I suggest you use your little fingers and Google away
until you're blue in the face. Use such names as Catlett, Hawkins,
Rouzee, Rowsey, Rowzey, Gaines, etc. in your searches. I wish I'd
had access to this article when I was starting this research.
Grandson was used once and grandson in law was used once. I believe
it was simple scribal error. Daniel Gaines had no other biological
children that I've found, nor did Margaret or her first husband. But
I haven't researched it exhaustively. The Smyth line is not mine so,
while I highly suspect that these terms refer to the same person, I am
not 100% sure. If I'm feeling generous, I may spend a bit of time
researching it. No charge. Consider yourself lucky.
It's funny, but I actually agree with you that Elizabeth Dale was Diana
Skipworth's daughter but I just figure it's a case of Occam's Razor. I
think that Mary was probably not Diana's daughter, but the ca 1655
birthdate I assign her is based merely on the assumption that the typica
2-year spacing between siblings occurred, that Mary was no younger
than 16 when she married by 1671, and that Diana Skipworth was still
single in Nov 1655. There is no "smoking gun yet, and there may never
be one. A case must be built piece by piece, and nothing is ironclad.
A newly discovered piece of evidence can suddenly make or break your
point (just look at the Countess Ida search, years and years until it was
moved forward just a little).
I did my research the hard way and cultivated contacts the hard way,
one at a time. Margaret and I exchanged emails quite often in 2000,
I treated her with respect and she returned it in kind. Try it.
Vickie Elam White
"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144451159.458134.90780@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You're not going to shame me into anything. If you are so interested
in finding out the rest of the story, it is too complicated for me to type
up and post here. It took me years to find it all. But I will tell you
a good place to start -- "The Virginia Genealogist", 2003 (October
or so, I think) had an article by Margaret Admundson about Daniel
Gaines. Then I suggest you use your little fingers and Google away
until you're blue in the face. Use such names as Catlett, Hawkins,
Rouzee, Rowsey, Rowzey, Gaines, etc. in your searches. I wish I'd
had access to this article when I was starting this research.
Grandson was used once and grandson in law was used once. I believe
it was simple scribal error. Daniel Gaines had no other biological
children that I've found, nor did Margaret or her first husband. But
I haven't researched it exhaustively. The Smyth line is not mine so,
while I highly suspect that these terms refer to the same person, I am
not 100% sure. If I'm feeling generous, I may spend a bit of time
researching it. No charge. Consider yourself lucky.
It's funny, but I actually agree with you that Elizabeth Dale was Diana
Skipworth's daughter but I just figure it's a case of Occam's Razor. I
think that Mary was probably not Diana's daughter, but the ca 1655
birthdate I assign her is based merely on the assumption that the typica
2-year spacing between siblings occurred, that Mary was no younger
than 16 when she married by 1671, and that Diana Skipworth was still
single in Nov 1655. There is no "smoking gun yet, and there may never
be one. A case must be built piece by piece, and nothing is ironclad.
A newly discovered piece of evidence can suddenly make or break your
point (just look at the Countess Ida search, years and years until it was
moved forward just a little).
I did my research the hard way and cultivated contacts the hard way,
one at a time. Margaret and I exchanged emails quite often in 2000,
I treated her with respect and she returned it in kind. Try it.
Vickie Elam White
"JeffChipman" <jeffchip9@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144451159.458134.90780@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Todd, you are a jerk. If you think I'm going to apologize to you,
you've got rocks in your hea. Who do you think you are?
In post 12 of this thread (which apparently you can't find, along with
your ass), I mentioned my reaction to the Gaines will, and said while
it looked interesting, more documentation was needed to demonstrate the
relationships. The will itself is not enough to do that. I then
presented my understanding of the relationships and asked Vickie if
that's what was intended. You are poster 16 in this thread and Vickie
has yet to do that. I'm assuming that she will in one way or another.
This reminds me a great deal about a debate years ago over "the
infidelity factor." Someone pointed out that occasionally wives would
pass off a lover's son as being her husband's. There would be no
records to indicate it had happened. How serious the matter was
depended on what set of statistics you used, but it could indicate that
more than 20 per cent of somebody's lines were false. I don't want to
reopen that debate.
I will say this, and it's nothing approaching a "scientific" statement,
that a greater problem than variations in the term "sonne in law" is a
man calling a "step-son" "son." He marries a widow with small
children, and he loves his wife and her children, and they become
"his." There is no record at all to show that those children are not
his.
You conveniently buried in your rancid post the fact that in this will
Gaines called the same person "grandson" and "grandson-in-law." That's
telling me that sometimes the term "grandson" can mean "grandson in
law." You not going to comment on that because it opens the door to
your intellectual bankruptcy. So--I'm going to start a thread
entitled: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law. I'm going to shame
Vickie into posting the rest of her documentation and invite comments
on that subject.
The "old guard" of this newsgroup are peddling the notions that their
genealogical standards are "better" than mine, and if they produce one
incomplete example I'm supposed to start apologizing. This is exactly
what they're saying. You're an idiot.
Here's what a man really considered to be a prominent genealogist has
to say about standards:
"The paradox about standards is that the word implies objectivity, when
in fact the standards in genealogy ... are essentially subjective. I
have seen so many cases of people trying to quantify genealogical
standards."
My philosophy is that I'm going to try to unearth every pertinent
record. I'm not going to obsess over something I don't think is that
big a deal, and that the people involved would have clarified for legal
or other reasons in those cases. I'm not going to hound somebody who
has poured a great deal of time into their research so that they will
have to produce some document that I've told them is essential to
satisfy my standards.
I have no problem at all with you or anyone else applying your
standards to a given case, but if you come to me and try to force them
on me, I'm going to run you out of town on a rail. Got it?
I don't have a problem with the archives. Why should I? Is that
supposed to intimidate me? I have the right to raise a question with
anybody in this newsgroup. I don't care if other people read it.
So, Todd, since you have opened the door on so many things, what are
your genealogical standards, how do you apply them, and why do you
think I should? And don't hand me this crap as if you are a
self-appointed moderator.
JTC
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
JeffChipman wrote:
More insightful commentary from our pal Jeff.
If you think I'm going to apologize to you,
Of course you are not going to apologize, given that you are never
wrong. As to who has rocks in their "hea", I have a word of advice: if
you are going to insult someone's intellegence, it will be more
persuasive if you _spell all of the words right_.
Post 12? You do realize that posts are numbered in neither soc.gen.med
nor GEN-MEDIEVAL, don't you? You aren't making the assumption that
these posts you are reading on Google all originate there, are you?
I mentioned my reaction to the Gaines will, and said while
Poster 16? Here is an exercise for you. First look at how Google
numbers the posts - they are not numbered in the order received, but
based on how they thread. The next time someone posts - in fact, as
soon as this post appears, the numbering will change. What will not
change is the time submitted - look at those. My post to which you are
responding, was made 3 hours to the minute _before_ yours. Thus this
use of post numbers, presumably intended to show that I have ignored
your contribution, is a little bit misplaced, since a) my post was made
before the post I supposedly should have taken into account, and 2) what
I expressed is in no way affected by Vickie's information, nor your
respose to it. It entirely had to do with your lame stawman about what
you were "told", your inability to back up anything you have said while
demanding that of others, and your ad hoc declaration that Virginia
genealogy is especially difficult, as compared to everywhere else in the
world, and deserves a special waiver or the standards that would apply
elsewhere. None of these are affected by Vivkie's evidence, nor your
desparate attempts to explain why you can still ignore all possible uses
of son-in-law except the one you want to use.
Then your point in mentioning it is . . . ?
Again, your point would be . . . . ? Oh, I get it, because people could
call their stepson their "son", then we can ignore the 'lesser' problem
of what son-in-law means and just pick what we want, because that other
problem is much larger. Clear as milk.
Buried? My post didn't address the Gaines will in the slightest.
That's
Yes . . . . . ? Is this a problem for your world-view?
I don't quite see the problem, seeing as I don't tend to make
pronouncements of "iron-clad proof".
Of course. That would make the fourth new thread you have starded since
claiming that there were too many threads and insisting that everything
should be posted in one new one or you couldn't be troubled to read
them. Makes perfect sense to me.
I'm going to shame
As to 'shame', you have none. You have NO BUSINESS attacking Vickie for
the sole sin of PROVIDING THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE BEEN DEMANDING.
That is exactly one more than you have provided.
And as you have demonstrated, you are going to conclude that it is no
big deal based on zero evidence, but a strong desire that the descent be
"iron-clad".
Curious, then, that you have just announced your intention of "shaming"
Vickie into producing some document that you've told her is essential to
satisfy your standards. (You don't even see that you are doing it, do you?)
I have just been trying to get you to truthfully apply your own
standards, which you can't seem to be troubled with.
I didn't mention the archives. Go back and read my post if you don't
believe me - it's in the archives (number 16 - well, it was number 16).
One is that it is hypocritical to demand "proof beyond reasonable doubt"
of a disproof, when you have no evidence whatsoever, let alone "proof
beyond reasonable doubt", for the original connection which is the
subject of the disproof. Why? Logical consistency. Now you tell me
why you think logical consistency need not apply to you. Because
Virginia is _so_ hard?
taf
Todd, you are a jerk.
More insightful commentary from our pal Jeff.
If you think I'm going to apologize to you,
you've got rocks in your hea. Who do you think you are?
Of course you are not going to apologize, given that you are never
wrong. As to who has rocks in their "hea", I have a word of advice: if
you are going to insult someone's intellegence, it will be more
persuasive if you _spell all of the words right_.
In post 12 of this thread (which apparently you can't find, along with
your ass),
Post 12? You do realize that posts are numbered in neither soc.gen.med
nor GEN-MEDIEVAL, don't you? You aren't making the assumption that
these posts you are reading on Google all originate there, are you?
I mentioned my reaction to the Gaines will, and said while
it looked interesting, more documentation was needed to demonstrate the
relationships. The will itself is not enough to do that. I then
presented my understanding of the relationships and asked Vickie if
that's what was intended. You are poster 16 in this thread and Vickie
has yet to do that.
Poster 16? Here is an exercise for you. First look at how Google
numbers the posts - they are not numbered in the order received, but
based on how they thread. The next time someone posts - in fact, as
soon as this post appears, the numbering will change. What will not
change is the time submitted - look at those. My post to which you are
responding, was made 3 hours to the minute _before_ yours. Thus this
use of post numbers, presumably intended to show that I have ignored
your contribution, is a little bit misplaced, since a) my post was made
before the post I supposedly should have taken into account, and 2) what
I expressed is in no way affected by Vickie's information, nor your
respose to it. It entirely had to do with your lame stawman about what
you were "told", your inability to back up anything you have said while
demanding that of others, and your ad hoc declaration that Virginia
genealogy is especially difficult, as compared to everywhere else in the
world, and deserves a special waiver or the standards that would apply
elsewhere. None of these are affected by Vivkie's evidence, nor your
desparate attempts to explain why you can still ignore all possible uses
of son-in-law except the one you want to use.
This reminds me a great deal about a debate years ago over "the
infidelity factor." Someone pointed out that occasionally wives would
pass off a lover's son as being her husband's. There would be no
records to indicate it had happened. How serious the matter was
depended on what set of statistics you used, but it could indicate that
more than 20 per cent of somebody's lines were false. I don't want to
reopen that debate.
Then your point in mentioning it is . . . ?
I will say this, and it's nothing approaching a "scientific" statement,
that a greater problem than variations in the term "sonne in law" is a
man calling a "step-son" "son."
Again, your point would be . . . . ? Oh, I get it, because people could
call their stepson their "son", then we can ignore the 'lesser' problem
of what son-in-law means and just pick what we want, because that other
problem is much larger. Clear as milk.
You conveniently buried in your rancid post the fact that in this will
Gaines called the same person "grandson" and "grandson-in-law."
Buried? My post didn't address the Gaines will in the slightest.
That's
telling me that sometimes the term "grandson" can mean "grandson in
law."
Yes . . . . . ? Is this a problem for your world-view?
You not going to comment on that because it opens the door to
your intellectual bankruptcy.
I don't quite see the problem, seeing as I don't tend to make
pronouncements of "iron-clad proof".
So--I'm going to start a thread
entitled: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law.
Of course. That would make the fourth new thread you have starded since
claiming that there were too many threads and insisting that everything
should be posted in one new one or you couldn't be troubled to read
them. Makes perfect sense to me.
I'm going to shame
Vickie into posting the rest of her documentation and invite comments
on that subject.
As to 'shame', you have none. You have NO BUSINESS attacking Vickie for
the sole sin of PROVIDING THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE BEEN DEMANDING.
The "old guard" of this newsgroup are peddling the notions that their
genealogical standards are "better" than mine, and if they produce one
incomplete example I'm supposed to start apologizing.
That is exactly one more than you have provided.
My philosophy is that I'm going to try to unearth every pertinent
record. I'm not going to obsess over something I don't think is that
big a deal,
And as you have demonstrated, you are going to conclude that it is no
big deal based on zero evidence, but a strong desire that the descent be
"iron-clad".
I'm not going to hound somebody who
has poured a great deal of time into their research so that they will
have to produce some document that I've told them is essential to
satisfy my standards.
Curious, then, that you have just announced your intention of "shaming"
Vickie into producing some document that you've told her is essential to
satisfy your standards. (You don't even see that you are doing it, do you?)
I have no problem at all with you or anyone else applying your
standards to a given case, but if you come to me and try to force them
on me,
I have just been trying to get you to truthfully apply your own
standards, which you can't seem to be troubled with.
I don't have a problem with the archives. Why should I? Is that
supposed to intimidate me?
I didn't mention the archives. Go back and read my post if you don't
believe me - it's in the archives (number 16 - well, it was number 16).
So, Todd, since you have opened the door on so many things, what are
your genealogical standards, how do you apply them, and why do you
think I should?
One is that it is hypocritical to demand "proof beyond reasonable doubt"
of a disproof, when you have no evidence whatsoever, let alone "proof
beyond reasonable doubt", for the original connection which is the
subject of the disproof. Why? Logical consistency. Now you tell me
why you think logical consistency need not apply to you. Because
Virginia is _so_ hard?
taf
-
JeffChipman
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
As a matter of fact, I did note that.
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
JeffChipman wrote:
We have here a study in the ad hoc hypothesis (a special-case argument
created for the sole purpose of preserving an untennible hypothesis in
the face of seemingly contradictory evidence).
Original hypothesis: "son-in-law" only means husband of daughter, not
husband of step-daughter.
(contradictory evidence posted)
1st ad hoc: It can rarely mean other things, such as step-son, but never
husband of step-daughter.
(contradictory evidence posted)
2nd ad hoc: it could, rarely be used to mean husband of step-daughter,
but only so rarely or in other places or at other times, such that it
can be ignored if used in 17th century Virginia.
(contradictory evidence posted)
3rd ad hoc: it could be used for husband of step-daughter in 17th
century Virginia, but in such cases it would have been clarified as
intending this alternative meaning, either elsewhere in the document
itself or in some other document (of course, this ignores the 'special
pleading' that there are so few useful sources for Virginia that it
would be unfair to require such proof, but that only applies to
arguments in favor of lines, not those suggesting that the line remains
unproven).
I am just curious what the next fall-back position is going to be? That
it could mean step-daughter-in-law, but only on weekdays, and the Diana
Dale use was on a Saturday?
taf
I believe that the use of "sonne in law" to mean
"husband of my step-daughter" is rare, and that if it is used in a
subsidiary sense, it will be probably picked up in some other document.
We have here a study in the ad hoc hypothesis (a special-case argument
created for the sole purpose of preserving an untennible hypothesis in
the face of seemingly contradictory evidence).
Original hypothesis: "son-in-law" only means husband of daughter, not
husband of step-daughter.
(contradictory evidence posted)
1st ad hoc: It can rarely mean other things, such as step-son, but never
husband of step-daughter.
(contradictory evidence posted)
2nd ad hoc: it could, rarely be used to mean husband of step-daughter,
but only so rarely or in other places or at other times, such that it
can be ignored if used in 17th century Virginia.
(contradictory evidence posted)
3rd ad hoc: it could be used for husband of step-daughter in 17th
century Virginia, but in such cases it would have been clarified as
intending this alternative meaning, either elsewhere in the document
itself or in some other document (of course, this ignores the 'special
pleading' that there are so few useful sources for Virginia that it
would be unfair to require such proof, but that only applies to
arguments in favor of lines, not those suggesting that the line remains
unproven).
I am just curious what the next fall-back position is going to be? That
it could mean step-daughter-in-law, but only on weekdays, and the Diana
Dale use was on a Saturday?
taf
-
Renia
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
JeffChipman wrote:
What did you note? You have snipped it away.
As a matter of fact, I did note that.
What did you note? You have snipped it away.
-
Gjest
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
Renia schrieb:
It doesn't matter. Unfortunately Jeff has amply demonstrated that none
of his contributions (invariably riddled with both invective and
stupidity) matter. The archives will now show to anyone with a brain
and a capacity to read what the real position is, so Jeff's idiotic
garbage is hopefully less likely to miselad others in the future. It's
time to move on and leave him to micturate into the wind.
MA-R
JeffChipman wrote:
As a matter of fact, I did note that.
What did you note? You have snipped it away.
It doesn't matter. Unfortunately Jeff has amply demonstrated that none
of his contributions (invariably riddled with both invective and
stupidity) matter. The archives will now show to anyone with a brain
and a capacity to read what the real position is, so Jeff's idiotic
garbage is hopefully less likely to miselad others in the future. It's
time to move on and leave him to micturate into the wind.
MA-R
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Does Nat Taylor have any evidence that "sonne in law" co
JeffChipman wrote:
Can't you understand that Vickie - and the others who have patiently been
trying to explain things to you - are trying to help you? (Though it's quite
understandable that others have lost their temper with you long ago.)
Wouldn't it be a good idea if you took some time away from this forum to
follow up some of the references people have been kind enough to provide,
rather than just being rude to everyone in sight?
Chris Phillips
I'm going to shame
Vickie into posting the rest of her documentation and invite comments
on that subject.
Can't you understand that Vickie - and the others who have patiently been
trying to explain things to you - are trying to help you? (Though it's quite
understandable that others have lost their temper with you long ago.)
Wouldn't it be a good idea if you took some time away from this forum to
follow up some of the references people have been kind enough to provide,
rather than just being rude to everyone in sight?
Chris Phillips