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 wasn't referring to a convent. Zoot suits came and went. Hardly anything is psychedelic any more. This principle especially applies to terms encountered when tracing one's roots. Every researcher eventually comes across archaic legal terms such as trusty friend or "my now wife." Misinterpret them at your peril. You'll either charge off on a wild goose chase or link people to the wrong families. Trusty friend is the way 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 counties spread across two states. Two were named Murray. The others had surnames such as Stull, Kezzy, Seekman and Hamilton. At first glance, it appears 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" often is found in legal documents from the early 1800s. Sometimes the person was just a friend or possibly an in-law. Other times, such as in Murray's case, it may be a blood relative. 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 may have had three previous wives. Or none at all.
The designations junior and senior have undergone an evolution. Around 1900, parents began taking junior onto a male child's surname when naming him after his father. The older man became senior when the younger one arrived on the scene. It wasn't always that way. Prior to about 1900, these labels were often used to distinguish between two men with the same name - one older, one younger - who lived in the same community. They could be father and son. But they might not even be related. 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 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.
-- Donna Murray Allen welcomes your questions about genealogy and will respond to those of general interest in future columns. Sorry, she can't take phone calls, but you can write to her c/o Floridian, St. Petersburg Times, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731, or e-mail her at rootscolumn@yahoo.com. Or visit her Web site: www.rootsdetective.com
