Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
JeffChipman
Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us
Vickie has posted the will of Daniel Gaines in which he calls John
Smyth his "grandson" as well as "grandson-in-law." Since these terms
were interchangeable in 17th century Virginia, anybody who is using a
document in which the term "grandson" is used to demonstrate your
relationship must conduct research to show that "grandson-in-law" is
not intended. If you don't, I'm going to have Todd Famerie lecture you
on good genealogical standards. If Vickie feels like it, she might
tell us even more about Daniel Gaines.
Sincerely,
The Management
(Oh! I'm sorry. I forgot I wasn't the moderator.)
Smyth his "grandson" as well as "grandson-in-law." Since these terms
were interchangeable in 17th century Virginia, anybody who is using a
document in which the term "grandson" is used to demonstrate your
relationship must conduct research to show that "grandson-in-law" is
not intended. If you don't, I'm going to have Todd Famerie lecture you
on good genealogical standards. If Vickie feels like it, she might
tell us even more about Daniel Gaines.
Sincerely,
The Management
(Oh! I'm sorry. I forgot I wasn't the moderator.)
-
Gjest
Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us
The terms are not interchangeable.
All whales are mammals, but not all mammals are whales.
The problem is you are defending your position like a religous fanatic.
What you can't seem to understand is that most of the people don't
necessarily disagree with your conclusions just with their certainty.
Fred Chalfant
JeffChipman wrote:
All whales are mammals, but not all mammals are whales.
The problem is you are defending your position like a religous fanatic.
What you can't seem to understand is that most of the people don't
necessarily disagree with your conclusions just with their certainty.
Fred Chalfant
JeffChipman wrote:
Vickie has posted the will of Daniel Gaines in which he calls John
Smyth his "grandson" as well as "grandson-in-law." Since these terms
were interchangeable in 17th century Virginia, anybody who is using a
document in which the term "grandson" is used to demonstrate your
relationship must conduct research to show that "grandson-in-law" is
not intended. If you don't, I'm going to have Todd Famerie lecture you
on good genealogical standards. If Vickie feels like it, she might
tell us even more about Daniel Gaines.
Sincerely,
The Management
(Oh! I'm sorry. I forgot I wasn't the moderator.)
-
JeffChipman
Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us
Scribal error... that's your explanation?
If you don't want to post your supporting documentation as a means of
punishing me, that's your business. You are also punishing everybody
else. Maybe you don't care about that, I don't know, or maybe you just
want us to get off our duffs and re-do the research.
You're next "explanation" will likely be that Gaines didn't write the
will. Well, the 3 witnesses saw him sign and seal it. I don't see
anything in your transcription that says he didn't write it, but even
if he did write it maybe he couldn't read it.
The fact remains that we have a will, an important legal document, made
in 17th century VA, in which the terms "grandson" and "grandson in law"
were used interchangeably. Now somebody will say that you are right
and they have evidence that shows there were errors in other wills so
that must mean that this example is an error, too.
Vickie has proved my point, without intending too. That is, there are
a lot of things that can mean different things depending on context and
other variables too, like the education level of the person, their
social status, etc. An indentured servant in Edward Dale's VA probably
didn't look at life the same way Dale did.
Unfortunately, we have a double standard here. If Vickie or Nat says
something means something, then their opinion, regardless of how it was
formed, is more important than mine.
BTW, The Thomas Carter prayer book says that Katherine Dale was older
than Elizabeth. It doesn't mention Mary Dale at all, but from the
chronology I don't think it's a problem saying Elizabeth was younger
than Mary, too.
I am going to stick with this, because I want some of the participants
held to account for their words. I want readers of this thread to
clearly understand that Vickie thought the "grandson" and "grandson in
law" references were great as long as they supported her position, and
when I called her on it, she's now claiming that it was "scribal
error."
I just don't think these relatively uncommon things are enough to
reject somebody's evidence. If there is evidence that the term meant
something else, I will ask for additional documentation. I'm only
going to worry about that if there is some document that shows me
that's a possibilty. BUT--if you're going to hold me to Nat's and
Vickie's standards, then I'm going to request that you rule out other
definitions for "grandson," too. Isn't that fair?
JTC
If you don't want to post your supporting documentation as a means of
punishing me, that's your business. You are also punishing everybody
else. Maybe you don't care about that, I don't know, or maybe you just
want us to get off our duffs and re-do the research.
You're next "explanation" will likely be that Gaines didn't write the
will. Well, the 3 witnesses saw him sign and seal it. I don't see
anything in your transcription that says he didn't write it, but even
if he did write it maybe he couldn't read it.
The fact remains that we have a will, an important legal document, made
in 17th century VA, in which the terms "grandson" and "grandson in law"
were used interchangeably. Now somebody will say that you are right
and they have evidence that shows there were errors in other wills so
that must mean that this example is an error, too.
Vickie has proved my point, without intending too. That is, there are
a lot of things that can mean different things depending on context and
other variables too, like the education level of the person, their
social status, etc. An indentured servant in Edward Dale's VA probably
didn't look at life the same way Dale did.
Unfortunately, we have a double standard here. If Vickie or Nat says
something means something, then their opinion, regardless of how it was
formed, is more important than mine.
BTW, The Thomas Carter prayer book says that Katherine Dale was older
than Elizabeth. It doesn't mention Mary Dale at all, but from the
chronology I don't think it's a problem saying Elizabeth was younger
than Mary, too.
I am going to stick with this, because I want some of the participants
held to account for their words. I want readers of this thread to
clearly understand that Vickie thought the "grandson" and "grandson in
law" references were great as long as they supported her position, and
when I called her on it, she's now claiming that it was "scribal
error."
I just don't think these relatively uncommon things are enough to
reject somebody's evidence. If there is evidence that the term meant
something else, I will ask for additional documentation. I'm only
going to worry about that if there is some document that shows me
that's a possibilty. BUT--if you're going to hold me to Nat's and
Vickie's standards, then I'm going to request that you rule out other
definitions for "grandson," too. Isn't that fair?
JTC
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us
JeffChipman wrote:
It is fair to hold anyone who claims "iron-clad" proof to such a
standard. The list of people participating in this discussion who have
been so naive as to do so is one name long.
taf
BUT--if you're going to hold me to Nat's and
Vickie's standards, then I'm going to request that you rule out other
definitions for "grandson," too. Isn't that fair?
It is fair to hold anyone who claims "iron-clad" proof to such a
standard. The list of people participating in this discussion who have
been so naive as to do so is one name long.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us
I don't know Todd, maybe Jeff is right and everybody else on the forum
is wrong. Maybe I'm just now seeing the truth.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... isStat.htm
Fred Chalfant
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
is wrong. Maybe I'm just now seeing the truth.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublons ... isStat.htm
Fred Chalfant
Todd A. Farmerie wrote:
JeffChipman wrote:
BUT--if you're going to hold me to Nat's and
Vickie's standards, then I'm going to request that you rule out other
definitions for "grandson," too. Isn't that fair?
It is fair to hold anyone who claims "iron-clad" proof to such a
standard. The list of people participating in this discussion who have
been so naive as to do so is one name long.
taf
-
Gjest
Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us
JeffChipman schrieb:
Although you didn't intend it as such, that is indeed good and
uncontroversial advice. I am sure that most of us on this list, who do
have high standards of proof, would conduct additional research as
thoroughly as possible in any such instance. Where the document is
which such a term is used remains the only source of evidence, and is
cited in publishing any conclusions or pedigrees based on it, the
strength (or weakness) of the case is clear to all.
It is nevertheless a reasonable assumption, in the absence of any other
evidence, that "grandson" means "grandson"; it is not reasonable to
consider it iron-clad proof.
MA-R
Vickie has posted the will of Daniel Gaines in which he calls John
Smyth his "grandson" as well as "grandson-in-law." Since these terms
were interchangeable in 17th century Virginia, anybody who is using a
document in which the term "grandson" is used to demonstrate your
relationship must conduct research to show that "grandson-in-law" is
not intended.
Although you didn't intend it as such, that is indeed good and
uncontroversial advice. I am sure that most of us on this list, who do
have high standards of proof, would conduct additional research as
thoroughly as possible in any such instance. Where the document is
which such a term is used remains the only source of evidence, and is
cited in publishing any conclusions or pedigrees based on it, the
strength (or weakness) of the case is clear to all.
It is nevertheless a reasonable assumption, in the absence of any other
evidence, that "grandson" means "grandson"; it is not reasonable to
consider it iron-clad proof.
MA-R
-
Symonds
Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us
Some thoughts/questions arising from the will (ca. 1682) of Abraham Wood
of Charles City County, Virginia, which mentions wife, daughter,
grandchildren in law, and a godson:
In the name of God, amen. I, Abraham Wood, in the county of Charles City
in Virginia, . . .My body to be buried in the night by my wife . . .
Item: I give and bequeath to my daughter Mary Chamberlaine, my silver
tobacco box and my plantation with all thereupon belonging to me known
by the name of Fleetes in Henrico County and also three hundred acres of
land lying and being upon the uttermost line of a patent granted to me
bearing date the tenth of July, one thousand six hundred and eighty,
which land is known by the name of Ronhorak, to her and her heirs
forever; I give and bequeath to my *grandchildren-in-law*, viz: Abrah:
Jones, Richard Jones, Peter Jones and William Jones, all my lands,
housing, orchards and tenements lying and being in Charles City County,
Virginia, to them and their heirs forever, equally to be divided & they
to make theirs according to their seniority (excepting what is already
bequeathed to my daughter Mary Chamberlaine) & one hundred acres which I
give unto my godson Abraham Alley lying and being the easterly line of
my dividend to him the said Abrah. Alley & his brother Henry Alley
equally to be divided, to them and their heirs forever. And what person
or persons whatsoever by any claim of right [torn] shall disturb or
molest the said Abraham Jones, Richard J[ones], Peter Jones & William
Jones or either of them, their or either [torn] heirs in the peaceable
and quiet enjoyment thereof that [torn] or she or whatsoever they be, to
pay unto Abraham Jone[s, Richard] Jones, Peter Jones & William Jones or
their heirs the... "
In view of the last paragraph in which Abraham Wood may have threatened
money damages against the contestants of his gifts to grandchildren in
law, it seems probable that in 17thC Virginia, there was a legal
difference between common law rights of "grandchildren" v.
"grandchildren in law" that could be altered by a will. In this case, a
commonly held theory is that the three Jones grandchildren in law may
have been the grandsons of the wife who survived him. The wife remains
unidentified as far as I know.
A curious provision directed his wife to bury him at night. Is anyone
able to assist with any information about this practice?
Marilyn
of Charles City County, Virginia, which mentions wife, daughter,
grandchildren in law, and a godson:
In the name of God, amen. I, Abraham Wood, in the county of Charles City
in Virginia, . . .My body to be buried in the night by my wife . . .
Item: I give and bequeath to my daughter Mary Chamberlaine, my silver
tobacco box and my plantation with all thereupon belonging to me known
by the name of Fleetes in Henrico County and also three hundred acres of
land lying and being upon the uttermost line of a patent granted to me
bearing date the tenth of July, one thousand six hundred and eighty,
which land is known by the name of Ronhorak, to her and her heirs
forever; I give and bequeath to my *grandchildren-in-law*, viz: Abrah:
Jones, Richard Jones, Peter Jones and William Jones, all my lands,
housing, orchards and tenements lying and being in Charles City County,
Virginia, to them and their heirs forever, equally to be divided & they
to make theirs according to their seniority (excepting what is already
bequeathed to my daughter Mary Chamberlaine) & one hundred acres which I
give unto my godson Abraham Alley lying and being the easterly line of
my dividend to him the said Abrah. Alley & his brother Henry Alley
equally to be divided, to them and their heirs forever. And what person
or persons whatsoever by any claim of right [torn] shall disturb or
molest the said Abraham Jones, Richard J[ones], Peter Jones & William
Jones or either of them, their or either [torn] heirs in the peaceable
and quiet enjoyment thereof that [torn] or she or whatsoever they be, to
pay unto Abraham Jone[s, Richard] Jones, Peter Jones & William Jones or
their heirs the... "
In view of the last paragraph in which Abraham Wood may have threatened
money damages against the contestants of his gifts to grandchildren in
law, it seems probable that in 17thC Virginia, there was a legal
difference between common law rights of "grandchildren" v.
"grandchildren in law" that could be altered by a will. In this case, a
commonly held theory is that the three Jones grandchildren in law may
have been the grandsons of the wife who survived him. The wife remains
unidentified as far as I know.
A curious provision directed his wife to bury him at night. Is anyone
able to assist with any information about this practice?
Marilyn
It is nevertheless a reasonable assumption, in the absence of any other
evidence, that "grandson" means "grandson"; it is not reasonable to
consider it iron-clad proof.
MA-R
-
Symonds
Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us
Correction to this post: there were *four* grandchildren in law
mentioned in Abraham Wood's will.
Marilyn
Symonds wrote:
mentioned in Abraham Wood's will.
Marilyn
Symonds wrote:
Some thoughts/questions arising from the will (ca. 1682) of Abraham Wood
of Charles City County, Virginia, which mentions wife, daughter,
grandchildren in law, and a godson:
-
JeffChipman
Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us
I think you have a real possibility there.
JT Chipman
Registrar
Global Society of the Descendants of Surly 12th Century European
Peasants (the surlier the better)
To
Women with blue hair who wear tennis shoes.
It has come to my attention that in Gary Boyd Roberts' 2006 edition
of RD600 pg 337 he proves that the term "cousin" can sometimes mean
"niece" in 17th century England.
I've had about enough! I'm on to your tricks. Think of how our
illustrious ancestors, who gave countless landed aristocrats many hours
of pleasure exploiting them, would feel if we had a phony peasant
descendant in our midst.
Therefore, I have consulted myself and made the following decision:
Any line which uses the following terms in the chain of evidence will
have to be completely re-done and re-submitted:
Son-in-law
Grandson
Cousin
I realize that these terms are extremely common, but we can't treat
somebody's fraudulent descent from Matt the Cobbler the same as a
legitimate line from Simon the Fishmonger, can we? That's anarchy.
What's the matter with you people? How long has this been going on?
Get crackin'. And don't think I won't be watching.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You think that's a joke, Fred? Get off your duff and re-do your
research. Are you too lazy?
JTC
From the desk of
JT Chipman
Registrar
Global Society of the Descendants of Surly 12th Century European
Peasants (the surlier the better)
To
Women with blue hair who wear tennis shoes.
It has come to my attention that in Gary Boyd Roberts' 2006 edition
of RD600 pg 337 he proves that the term "cousin" can sometimes mean
"niece" in 17th century England.
I've had about enough! I'm on to your tricks. Think of how our
illustrious ancestors, who gave countless landed aristocrats many hours
of pleasure exploiting them, would feel if we had a phony peasant
descendant in our midst.
Therefore, I have consulted myself and made the following decision:
Any line which uses the following terms in the chain of evidence will
have to be completely re-done and re-submitted:
Son-in-law
Grandson
Cousin
I realize that these terms are extremely common, but we can't treat
somebody's fraudulent descent from Matt the Cobbler the same as a
legitimate line from Simon the Fishmonger, can we? That's anarchy.
What's the matter with you people? How long has this been going on?
Get crackin'. And don't think I won't be watching.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You think that's a joke, Fred? Get off your duff and re-do your
research. Are you too lazy?
JTC
-
Gjest
Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us
Yes a joke. Given the most of the threads you have started a little
humor might be a relief. Is there a particular piece of research I have
done that you seem to think needs to be reexamined? Please let me know.
FC
JeffChipman wrote:
humor might be a relief. Is there a particular piece of research I have
done that you seem to think needs to be reexamined? Please let me know.
FC
JeffChipman wrote:
You think that's a joke, Fred? Get off your duff and re-do your
research. Are you too lazy?
JTC
-
Vickie Elam White
Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us
Thanks for posting this. It was exactly the one I was thinking of!
Vickie Elam White
"Symonds" <sysite@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:4437A592.4070600@swbell.net...
Vickie Elam White
"Symonds" <sysite@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:4437A592.4070600@swbell.net...
Some thoughts/questions arising from the will (ca. 1682) of Abraham Wood
of Charles City County, Virginia, which mentions wife, daughter,
grandchildren in law, and a godson:
In the name of God, amen. I, Abraham Wood, in the county of Charles City
in Virginia, . . .My body to be buried in the night by my wife . . .
Item: I give and bequeath to my daughter Mary Chamberlaine, my silver
tobacco box and my plantation with all thereupon belonging to me known
by the name of Fleetes in Henrico County and also three hundred acres of
land lying and being upon the uttermost line of a patent granted to me
bearing date the tenth of July, one thousand six hundred and eighty,
which land is known by the name of Ronhorak, to her and her heirs
forever; I give and bequeath to my *grandchildren-in-law*, viz: Abrah:
Jones, Richard Jones, Peter Jones and William Jones, all my lands,
housing, orchards and tenements lying and being in Charles City County,
Virginia, to them and their heirs forever, equally to be divided & they
to make theirs according to their seniority (excepting what is already
bequeathed to my daughter Mary Chamberlaine) & one hundred acres which I
give unto my godson Abraham Alley lying and being the easterly line of
my dividend to him the said Abrah. Alley & his brother Henry Alley
equally to be divided, to them and their heirs forever. And what person
or persons whatsoever by any claim of right [torn] shall disturb or
molest the said Abraham Jones, Richard J[ones], Peter Jones & William
Jones or either of them, their or either [torn] heirs in the peaceable
and quiet enjoyment thereof that [torn] or she or whatsoever they be, to
pay unto Abraham Jone[s, Richard] Jones, Peter Jones & William Jones or
their heirs the... "
In view of the last paragraph in which Abraham Wood may have threatened
money damages against the contestants of his gifts to grandchildren in
law, it seems probable that in 17thC Virginia, there was a legal
difference between common law rights of "grandchildren" v.
"grandchildren in law" that could be altered by a will. In this case, a
commonly held theory is that the three Jones grandchildren in law may
have been the grandsons of the wife who survived him. The wife remains
unidentified as far as I know.
A curious provision directed his wife to bury him at night. Is anyone
able to assist with any information about this practice?
Marilyn
It is nevertheless a reasonable assumption, in the absence of any other
evidence, that "grandson" means "grandson"; it is not reasonable to
consider it iron-clad proof.
MA-R
-
Vickie Elam White
Re: Grandson can mean grandson-in-law Vickie tells us
Thanks for posting this. It is exactly the one I was thinking of.
I was just going by memory and have had a chance to look at
my files, and I was wrong -- Abraham Wood's second wife
was not the widow of James Crews. His wife pre-deceased him.
She wasn't mentioned in his will, and his probate records clearly
state that he was a "widower" and that he was "unmarried"
(technically true, since his wife had died).
Vickie Elam White
"Symonds" <sysite@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:4437A592.4070600@swbell.net...
I was just going by memory and have had a chance to look at
my files, and I was wrong -- Abraham Wood's second wife
was not the widow of James Crews. His wife pre-deceased him.
She wasn't mentioned in his will, and his probate records clearly
state that he was a "widower" and that he was "unmarried"
(technically true, since his wife had died).
Vickie Elam White
"Symonds" <sysite@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:4437A592.4070600@swbell.net...
Some thoughts/questions arising from the will (ca. 1682) of Abraham Wood
of Charles City County, Virginia, which mentions wife, daughter,
grandchildren in law, and a godson:
In the name of God, amen. I, Abraham Wood, in the county of Charles City
in Virginia, . . .My body to be buried in the night by my wife . . .
Item: I give and bequeath to my daughter Mary Chamberlaine, my silver
tobacco box and my plantation with all thereupon belonging to me known
by the name of Fleetes in Henrico County and also three hundred acres of
land lying and being upon the uttermost line of a patent granted to me
bearing date the tenth of July, one thousand six hundred and eighty,
which land is known by the name of Ronhorak, to her and her heirs
forever; I give and bequeath to my *grandchildren-in-law*, viz: Abrah:
Jones, Richard Jones, Peter Jones and William Jones, all my lands,
housing, orchards and tenements lying and being in Charles City County,
Virginia, to them and their heirs forever, equally to be divided & they
to make theirs according to their seniority (excepting what is already
bequeathed to my daughter Mary Chamberlaine) & one hundred acres which I
give unto my godson Abraham Alley lying and being the easterly line of
my dividend to him the said Abrah. Alley & his brother Henry Alley
equally to be divided, to them and their heirs forever. And what person
or persons whatsoever by any claim of right [torn] shall disturb or
molest the said Abraham Jones, Richard J[ones], Peter Jones & William
Jones or either of them, their or either [torn] heirs in the peaceable
and quiet enjoyment thereof that [torn] or she or whatsoever they be, to
pay unto Abraham Jone[s, Richard] Jones, Peter Jones & William Jones or
their heirs the... "
In view of the last paragraph in which Abraham Wood may have threatened
money damages against the contestants of his gifts to grandchildren in
law, it seems probable that in 17thC Virginia, there was a legal
difference between common law rights of "grandchildren" v.
"grandchildren in law" that could be altered by a will. In this case, a
commonly held theory is that the three Jones grandchildren in law may
have been the grandsons of the wife who survived him. The wife remains
unidentified as far as I know.
A curious provision directed his wife to bury him at night. Is anyone
able to assist with any information about this practice?
Marilyn
It is nevertheless a reasonable assumption, in the absence of any other
evidence, that "grandson" means "grandson"; it is not reasonable to
consider it iron-clad proof.
MA-R