Thank you, Peter. I had no idea that there was such a difference in adoption laws between countries. I did know that formal adoptions did not usually exist before a certain point in time. It seems that all societies have to reach a certain point before they "legalize" situations and put things in writing, but long before that, there was always someone to take in children to care for as one of their own--and that's what counts. However, your info will be helpful and I will keep it in mind as I track my Marshalls, Gregorys and Salisburys back out of my side of the pond towards your side of the pond (and related areas) Joan Earnshaw ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Marshall<mailto:tis_peter@blueyonder.co.uk> To: MARSHALL-L@rootsweb.com<mailto:MARSHALL-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:26 AM Subject: Re: [MARSHALL] In name only? - Practical adoption experience There are a few points that responders may have missed which, because I have studied adoption, I am perhaps a little more tuned in to. Firstly, [in the UK, which was very slow on the world stage to formalise things] there was no such thing as a legally recognised adoption until well into the 1900s. In fact it was the 'Adoption of Children' Act of 1926 that first legalised a full transfer of parental rights and duties. However, even then, the child retained the right of inheritance from natural parents, but had no right to receive any inheritance from the adoptive family. However, a will has always been able to change that. A famous 1800s example is that of [the writer] Jane Austen's brother who was taken on as if a son by the childless local manor-estate owner. Secondly, remember to consider the era when extended families were more important for everyday living than they often are now. In my extended tree are several youngsters who the [census] records show as children of the head of house when, in fact, research has shown them to be grand-children. Start off with the oldest daughter as 'the usual suspect' and work through the family. The broadest childbearing range I have ever come across is 23 years. Any more than 20 years after firstborn, I consider as maybe an 'adoptee' until proved otherwise. Similarly, I have found nieces and a nephew listed as 'Adopted Child'. So, do not automatically exclude the possibility that an adopted child is a blood relative. In the US, certainly until at least 1950, there were some states which forbade the adoption of relatives. [This seems odd. Can anyone please tell me why this was so?] Unlike the UK, an adopted US child inherited by right. Thirdly, think in terms of genealogy being about getting to know more about your ancestors and the family settings they lived within. Especially historically, an adopted child is fairly likely to be a relative of some description. The advent of antibiotics and medical surgery prolonging the lives of parents as well as the issues of contraception and also changing social attitudes has drastically reduced the number of 'relative adoptions'. However, remember that, whatever your personal viewpoint on adoption, it says something about the adopters that the child was adopted by choice. Best wishes Peter Marshall ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joan Earnshaw" <joanearnshaw1212@msn.com<mailto:joanearnshaw1212@msn.com>> To: <jonrhy@yahoo.com<mailto:jonrhy@yahoo.com>>; <marshall@rootsweb.com<mailto:marshall@rootsweb.com>> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [MARSHALL] In name only? >I include adoptees with a notation that they are adopted. Legally, they do >become part of the family, so they should be included, but since they are >not "blood" relatives, the notation takes care of that. ALSO, and this is >a very large and important fact, they do not feel rejected and you don't >end up causing and being in the middle of a whirlwind/feud. > > Joan Earnshaw > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John Rhymes<mailto:jonrhy@yahoo.com<mailto:jonrhy@yahoo.com>> > To: marshall-l@rootsweb.com<mailto:marshall-l@rootsweb.com<mailto:marshall-l@rootsweb.com%3Cmailto:marshall-l@rootsweb.com>> > Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 9:27 PM > Subject: [MARSHALL] In name only? > > > Is an adopted child to be included in a family > genealogy? > > He has not a drop of the family's blood line, yet he > does have the family's name. > > How do you handle that? > > Regards, > John > > www.our-domain.net/home.html<http://www.our-domain.net/home.html<http://www.our-domain.net/home.html%3Chttp://www.our-domain.net/home.html>> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > MARSHALL-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:MARSHALL-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:MARSHALL-request@rootsweb.com%3Cmailto:MARSHALL-request@rootsweb.com>> with > the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of > the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > MARSHALL-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:MARSHALL-request@rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to MARSHALL-request@rootsweb.com<mailto:MARSHALL-request@rootsweb.com> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message