Dear John & Bruce,
While I'm still struggling to find my husband's gggg grandfather in the
1780's here in the US, I am very good at sleuthing out relationships when I
do find documents to examine. I am such
a purist that I NEVER say "I am descended from......" until I have a
positive documented link
to that person. (In other words, I never use a published book as a link
unless I first document its content).
So, I thought that you two, as well as others on the list, might enjoy
the following brief
exerpt from THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST regarding relationships. I will limit
my present extraction
to the discussion of "junior","senior", 3rd,4th, etc.. I neglected to
write
down the Vol. & pg.#
from this 5-pg. article, but will do that tomorrow and forward it to the List.
"INTERPRETING GENEALOGICAL RECORDS"
From:THE AMERICAN GENEALOGIST
"Before we have handled genealogical records very long, we discover
that con-
siderable special knowledge is required to enable us to interpret the
records
we find. It is not merely, if we seek out ancient public records, that
there is
difficulty in reading the script of three centuries ago, and that
considerable
practice is required before we are able to read it fluently. In a
later article,
we plan to discuss this difficulty. But even if we limit ourselves to
printed
copies of ancient records, we find many terms used which we do not
understand,
and we are particularly puzzled when words that are entirely familiar
are used
in a different sense from that which they possess to-day. A few of
these, we
shall explain here." ....
"Ignorance of these rudimentary principles has been responsible for
the print-
ing of a great deal of nonsense by amateur family historians." ....
"Terms used to denote degrees of relationship had somewhat different
meanings
that they have today, and this too is a stumbling-block to amateurs."....
"The terms "senior" and "junior" did not as a rule imply
the
relationship of
father and son until we reach the nineteenth century. In a day when
middle names
were not generally given to children, the rapid increase of the early
colonial
families quite naturally produced many individuals with identical
names. Such
individuals found it necessary to adopt some method of distinction, to
avoid
confusion, when signing deeds or other documents. The elder was called
"Sr."
and the younger "Jr." whether they were father and son, uncle and
nephew, or
cousins. Serious mistakes are found in many family histories because
of the
failures of the compilers to inform themselves in this matter."....
"Those who search documentary sources encounter this phenomenon
constantly.
In one town, five men named John Hall lived contemporaneously, and
they were
strictly labeled, according to age, Sr.,Jr.,3d,4th, and 5th. When Sr.
died,
each stepped up a notch, Jr. becoming Sr., and so on; for these
appellations
did not remain attached permanently to the same individual, but were
applied
to distinguish between LIVING men of the same name in the SAME
TOWNSHIP. If
John Hall 4th moved to some other town, he was no longer of
Wallingford, hence
John Hall formerly 5th, would automatically become "John Hall, 4th, of
the
town of Wallingford." I have actually seen deeds in which a man
called him-
self "John Doe,Jr.,formerly 3d." The novice becomes hopelessly
confused in
his efforts to determine the identity of the John Doe who was his
ancestor
when confronted with a perfect labyrinth of John Does."....
"It may prove necessary to abstract the probate records, and every
deed, of
every contemporary John .... of that locality, and to determine the life
history of each one, before we can be sure which was the father....but
it can
be done, if we have learned how to interpret the records"....
I hope you enjoy this excerpt from a very informing article. As I said
earlier, I'll forward the exact volume & pg. number tomorrow, so others can
read the entire article from the
AMERICAN GENEALOGIST, if they wish.
Sincerely,
Suzanne R. Carpenter
Comstock Park, MI 49321