RCPT TO:<[log in to unmask]>
DATA
DATA
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:10:34 +0000
To: "From: Local-History list" <[log in to unmask]>
From: peter berg <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: In-laws and step-relatives
References: <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.02-S (<MAV6PSjtmCp9TZipdP9+681Zd4>)
In message
<[log in to unmask]>,
GATLEY David A <[log in to unmask]> writes
>I've heard this before, but personnally in the 20,000 households I've
>looked at on the census, I have not found a single instance of this
>creating a problem.
>
>Best not to worry about such things at least on the census.
>
>David
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jon Whiting [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 12 February 2005 16:40
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: In-laws and step-relatives
>
>Hi all,
>
>I have recently been examining UK census returns. In many of the
>returns, it appears that the terms 'son-in-law' and 'daughter-in-law'
>are used to mean 'step-son' and 'step-daughter'. According to a
>reference at
>http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~randyj2222/gendicti.html
>
>"IN-LAW
>besides it's modern-day usage, which means a relative by marriage,
>colonists also used the term for any familial relationship that occurred
>from a marriage. Thus, a woman's father-in-law could be her husband's
>father or her stepfather. Her son-in-law could be her daughter's husband
>or her own stepson. Before 1720, this term usually always meant a
>"step"
>relationship."
>
>This implies that the terms were interchangeable in the US up to about
>1720, whereas the use in UK seems to have continued well into the 19th
>century.
>
>Does anyone have any references to when these two terms, as well as
>other '-in-law' and 'step-' uses, ceased to be interchangeable in both
>the US and the UK? Also is there any legal definition of the two terms
>in any Acts of Parliament?
>
>Regards
>Jon
>
>The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely for
>the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised.
>
>If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
>distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on
>it, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee, is prohibited
>and may be unlawful. Kindly notify the sender and delete the message and
>any attachment from your computer.
Dear list members
A red herring perhaps, but I'm reminded, since I happen to be in France
at the moment, that 'belle-fille', beau-fils', 'belle-mere' etc mean
both daughter-in-law and step-daughter etc in French.
Mellieurs voeux
--
peter berg
|