Texas Gen wrote: > Bob M.wrote: >> | Guess I'm confused by this thread. Are we asking about >> | titles for obscure relatives or obscure titles for relatives? > > > Well, I'm quite sure my previous reply digressed from OP's post. I admit > guilt, but not remorse. > > I guess I'll follow precedent and digress again, but it's somewhat loosely > related:::::: > > I have come across men (let's say pre-1810) who had odd middle names---not > after family surnames, but more like a place name in that county. And his > brothers would have no middle name at all. > > The story is (given by a reliable source that of course I can't remember) > that a few times when there were multiple names of, say, William Smythe, in > the county, to avoid confusion in tax lists, etc., the county recorder would > arbitrarily add to the name for clarification. So that the older William > would remain William Smythe, but the younger (who might be his nephew or > cousin) might be scribed on some docs as William Bradford Smythe--because he > owned the grist mill at the Bradford River, for example. > > Which clarified for the court recorder and for those at the time, but > muddies the water for us researchers. > > Come to think of it, today we might do that verbally. For example, we had > in our small school district two teachers named Sue Taylor. We referred to > one as "Sue Evans Taylor," because she taught at Evans Elem. Our inflection > and a slight gesture [no jokes please] indicated what we meant, but in a > written note to one another, it might seem to a third party forty years > later that the one Sue actually had the middle name Evans----and of course > off the researcher would say "Eureka!" and be off to dig for a maiden name > of Sue Evans. > > Second thing I learned from same forgotten but reliabe source:::::::: > Let's say once again that the county has two William Smythes. Instead of > throwing in a place name for clarification, the recorder might arbitrarily > add "I" or "Sr." to the name of the older man and "II" or even "Jr." to the > name of the younger man. When, in fact, they were uncle and nephew, not > father and son. > > So, I've found it comforting to know that even in original image court > documents, the names may not be what they seem, and relationships may not be > what they seem. "Woe to them that are at ease in Zion." :-) > > Warmest Regards (and greetings to Bob M. in El Paso---hope he's a native > Texan :-) in countries like Wales or Denmark where patronymics were normal - John Jones or Jens Jensen - had an ancestor called John or Johannes - John son of John is the meaning of their names - and therefore occupations are the primary nicknames and along with addresses, included in the danish telephone book Hugh W