>From the little I know about the subject (most of which I do know is from having read it here), it seems to me that the terms "removed" or "separated" are far better descriptors (than "disowned") to use today in describing the act and spirit of gently persuasive disengagement of an individuel from his or her judgmental Friends. What IS apparently regrettable and lacking in the old records is any follow-up for anyone who, once removed, has later been reaccepted and welcomed back without incident. Based on my own limited studies of personnel records of troops serving in the Union Army during the Civil War, I've learned that clerks for many units often entered the term "deserted" in many cases for troops who were not present for given roll calls...whereas they were actually just "on furlough" or "out sick" or "on leave" or "in the hospital" at the time. It seems to me that in terms of definition of a given condition regarding a person, that 18th and 19th Century terms were often far less sensitive to or less accurate than terms that are used typically today. So much for "political correctness.".