Hello Chris, Many thanks for the explanation. That will teach me to keep my mouth shut without all the facts. Or if you prefer not to join in a conversation in the middle of a thread Regards Ted ----- Original Message ----- From: "chris" <edwards05@blueyonder.co.uk> To: <ENG-BLACK-COUNTRY-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 8:58 AM Subject: [B.C.] Stepchildren etc. > Hi Ted and everybody, > In their every day conversation when referring to a relative our ancestors > (just as we do today) would have described the relationship e.g. "the > wife's brother" or "my sister's son." The difference being that whereas we > know the formal terminology used to define each of our relations in many > cases our ancestor's did not know nor in fact did they need to know. > Most working class people rarely had cause to write and often signed their > own name with a cross so the only time they had to go through the > inconvenience of coming up with unfamiliar words would be every ten years > for the census. > I have found that stepchildren were often entered on the census as > son-in-law or daughter-in-law. It is easy to understand the heads of > household's reasoning. After all if the wife's brother was the > brother-in-law and the wife's father was father in-law then surely the > wife's son was son-in-law. > In my own tree I have a genuine daughter-in-law simply listed as "son's > wife" and the grandchildren listed as "son's daughter" or "son's son." > In another extended family the son's children are listed correctly as > grandson/granddaughter but in the same large household the daughter's > children have been listed as nephew or niece. > Best wishes, > Chris > > > ==== ENG-BLACK-COUNTRY Mailing List ==== > The Assistant List Admins are Jean Morgan and Jan Ross > (Couldn't do it without those two great ladies) > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.6/324 - Release Date: 25/04/2006 > >