On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 4:01:29 PM UTC, Renia wrote: > On 21/08/2013 01:15, The Chief wrote: > > > Two possibilities to explain your mysterious "Lady" that don't seem > > > to have been mentioned before: > > > > > > 1) A simple misunderstanding Both then and even today, the wife or > > > daughter of any gentleman can rightfully claim to be, or be said to > > > be, a "lady". Indeed, it is common to see the wife of gentlemen so > > > > That is not correct. The style or title of Lady is part of one's name. > > A lady is a woman of fine manners and accomplishments,or as you > > suggest, the daughter of a gentleman but it does does not entitle her to > > use Lady as part of her name. or style herself as such on a census. Thank you for so perfectly capturing the type of confusion I am suggesting occurred in this case! The point is that "lady" has many connotations. In this instance, I am suggesting that the lady in question (see how easy it is to say "lady"...!!) did not refer to herself as "Lady Fulton", i.e. never made any improper claim to a title/style to which she was not entitled. Instead, she, or someone else, may have - entirely correctly - described her as a "lady". In this sense meaning the wife/widow/daughter of a gentleman. This is often the case on census documents, and is entirely proper. However, it can be misunderstood by the unwary as being a claim to be "Lady xyz", and so the unwary can go on to refer to "Lady XYZ", when XYZ never said or claimed such a thing. Regards, The Chief

On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 11:56:48 -0700 (PDT), The Chief <the.chieftain@ymail.com> wrote: >[...] In this instance, I am suggesting [...] she, > or someone else, may have - entirely > correctly - described her as a "lady". > In this sense meaning the wife/widow/daughter > of a gentleman. This is often the case on > census documents, and is entirely proper. > However, it can be misunderstood > by the unwary as being a claim to > be "Lady xyz", and so the unwary can go > on to refer to "Lady XYZ", when > XYZ never said or claimed such a thing. Rather like the partner of my half-ggg-uncle being listed with his surname rather than her own when she registered his death in 1843. She may have told the registrar that it was her surname, or the conversation might have been along the lines of: She: "My man is dead" Reg: "His name?" She: "Xxxxx Yyyyy" Reg: "And your name?" She: "Nnnnn" Registrar notes "Nnnnn Yyyyy" as informant She makes her mark, not aware of the error. The deceased's will refers to her with her own name, as does the Death Duties paperwork. When she marries, she does not mention having been known as Yyyyy.