In a message dated 4/2/2004 8:34:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, Diamonddeb@comcast.net writes: Manning was NOT a cousin of Rufus Putnam, but a grand nephew. Am I right? Which just could mean they used cousin for "kin" in which case we are going to be even more confused even longer <VBG> Eliz

Debbie, that isn't the only place where they didn't call the kinship all the time as we do today. Sisters-in-law were often called sisters. Sons-in-law were often called sons. Relatives-in-law were also often called cousins. Many times, older relatives were often called Aunt or Uncle, regardless of what their true relationship happened to be. Sometimes no relationship at all. That is why it is sooooooo important to check primary sources when they are available. Maryann ----- Original Message ----- From: <ElizHgene@aol.com> To: <OHWASHIN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [OHWASH] William Mason / Rufus Putnam Relationship > In a message dated 4/2/2004 8:34:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, > Diamonddeb@comcast.net writes: > Manning was NOT a cousin of Rufus Putnam, but a grand nephew. Am I right? > Which just could mean they used cousin for "kin" in which case we are going > to be even more confused even longer <VBG> > Eliz > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 >