Thought some of you might be interested in this article. It is something
to
consider when reading old documents.
Genealogy: Important: Get the last word on archaic terms
By DONNA MURRAY ALLEN
© St. Petersburg Times
published February 28, 2002
If there's one constant when it comes to language, it's that the meaning
of
words changes over time. When Shakespeare wrote, "Get thee to a nunnery,"
he
didn't have a religious connotation in mind. After the American
Revolution,
pounds went on your hips and not in your pockets.
This tenet especially holds true when it comes to tracing one's roots.
Every
researcher eventually encounters archaic legal terms like "trusty friend"
or
"my now wife." Misinterpret them at your peril. At best, you'll charge off
on a wild goose chase. Or worse, you'll link people to the wrong families.
"Trusty friend" is how John Murray is described by each person who signed
a
power-of-attorney document making Murray his or her personal
representative
in the sale of a parcel of land. The property was inherited jointly by the
children and grandchildren of William Essick, who died without leaving a
will.
The heirs lived in different counties spread across two different states.
Two were named Murray, but the others had the surnames Stull, Kezzy,
Seekman
and Hamilton. Thus, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that Murray's
connection to these people was limited to representing them in a legal
capacity.
In reality, Murray was much more than a friend. Three of the heirs were
his
siblings. Another was an aunt. But the only place these family ties are
clearly defined is in the 1810 courthouse document recording the
transaction. That's where Murray is shown to have a personal stake in the
land. Essick was his grandfather.
"Trusty friend" is often found in legal documents from the early 1800s.
Like
many labels and expressions used to describe relationships in earlier
centuries, the phrase means something entirely different today.
"My now wife" is another term that causes confusion. Commonly used in the
legal arena to differentiate between the current spouse and one that may
come along later, its purpose was to protect the estate from future
claims.
Now was the operative word. But it bore no relationship to the number of
times the man had wed. He could have had three previous wives. Or none at
all.
The designations junior and senior have undergone an evolution. These
days,
parents tack junior on to a male child's surname when his name is
identical
to his father's. The older man takes on the senior designation when the
younger one arrives on the scene.
It wasn't always that way. Before about 1900, these labels were often used
to distinguish between two people of the same name -- one older, one
younger -- who weren't necessarily father and son. They might be related.
They could simply have lived in the same community. Women occasionally
used
these designations for the same reason.
In Colonial times, "in-law" signified any relationship that occurred as a
result of marriage. When a woman referred to her father-in-law, she might
be
talking about her spouse's dad or her own stepfather. Likewise, her
son-in-law could be either her stepson or her daughter's husband. In one
probate record I saw, heirs-in-law referred to a married couple. The
deceased was the wife's father.
Nieces, nephews, close friends or relatives came under the cousin
umbrella.
And brothers and sisters may be blood relatives or other members of a
religious organization.
Some words have simply fallen out of favor. Relict and consort, once
popular
on tombstones, indicated which spouse died first. An epitaph reading "Mary
Smith, relict of John Smith," means Mary outlived John. Conversely, "Mary
Smith, consort of John Smith," indicates John was still living when Mary
died.
