Why does this Census record not recognize Son in law as Stepson ?
In this 1851 England & Wales Census record ..
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SGF8-15C
.. the focal person is Son in Law to the head of the household. At that time it meant son by marriage : i.e. Stepson. In modern times this has a different meaning, that of son by marriage to a blood daughter.
Unfortunately, when viewed in the source linker, the record seems to have the modern meaning, and consequently it has made his 8 year old sister appear to be his wife.
Where does the fault lie ? Was it in the original indexing, or is it in the way the record is presented ?
Is there a way to correct the error ?
Answers
-
@Sue Ramen said
"… the focal person is Son in Law to the head of the household. At that time it meant son by marriage : i.e. Stepson. In modern times this has a different meaning, that of son by marriage to a blood daughter. … "
Err - no, sorry. Certainly, "son-in-law" could indeed mean "stepson" in this era. However, if I understand you correctly, you appear to be saying that "son-in-law" didn't have its current meaning (of son by marriage to a daughter) at that point.
So far as I can see the phrase had both meanings at that time - indeed Merriam Webster claims that the "husband of one's daughter" meaning dates back to the 14th century. (See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/son-in-law ) Quite possibly both meanings go that far back, I couldn't resolve it.
I would therefore suggest that the indexer and programmers simply can't decide between the two options - it has to be down to the researcher.
3