Brother, brother in law or cousin? .....

ninatoo · Post by **ninatoo** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:18 am

Hi all,

I wonder if anyone else has come across entries on the census where the head names someone as a brother/sister when in fact it was probably their brother in law or cousin? This has been rather a journey for me, so I apologise in advance if it seems longwinded.

I have an entry for the 1881 census for my Logan clan:

At 176 Grangad Road Glasgow:

Hugh Logan, Head, 34, Mason's Labourer, Ireland
Mary Logan, W, 26, Ireland (2nd wife)
John Logan, S, 14. Ireland
Hugh Logan, S, 10, Glasgow, Lanark Scotland
James Logan, Brother, Married, Bricklayer's Labourer, 27, Ireland
Bridget Logan, Brother's wife, 24, Ireland
Mary Jane, Brother's daughter, 1, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland

Mary Logan and Bridget Logan were sisters, maiden names Cronin. However my first problem lay woth the names of the parents on Bridget's and James' marriage registration which were both not what I expected, although Bridget's parents are named correctly on her death registration. As Bridget was only 16 when she married, I presumed for a long time that they had both lied about their parentage.

On the marriage and death registrations for James his parents are listed as Thomas Logan and Jane Scullion. If he was Hugh's brother, they should have been John Logan and Catherine Camp/Kemp/Kemps. His wife Bridget would have known his parents presumably, as they had been alive at the time of the marriage and the wife had died before James (can't find the death in Scotland though). Both of HUGH's parents had died before James however.

Am I confusing you?

Well, anyway.....as I said, I just thought they were lying about James' parents all along, and Bridget continued it when she signed his death registration in 1897. HOWEVER, last night I decided to look for Hugh's parents on the 1881, (John Logan and Catherine) and found them at the SAME address BUT with an unmarried son James aged 30 living with them! So Bridget would have known THEM, and if they were James' parents too, she would have said so, wouldn't she?

So.....who was the James living with Hugh...did he call him "brother" when in fact he meant "brother in law", since the wives were sisters? So why didn't he write "wife's sister" for Bridget? Or was James a cousin?

I have no data on James' listed parents Thomas Logan and Jane Scullion...can't find them in Scotland, so I presume they lived in Ireland...so I don't know if Thomas was a brother to Hugh's father John.

I am just running around in circles here, so perhaps if someone can just tell me if it was common to call a brother in law or cousin your brother? If so I could knock them over the head, as I will have to clean up my tree!

Grrrrrr!

Nina

Post by **Tracey** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:55 am

Nina i have one similar. All is correct except one relationship and i have absolutley no idea how the head came by the sir name she has but i know this is them. Long story but the short of it is i have given up, far too confusing !! Saving this till retirement - only 20 odd years to go

To add to the frustration this is an English one ..............i wish there was a yawn emoticon !

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:01 am

Nina

Back then, usage of relationship terms was sometimes looser, even much looser than today when, in our society, we'd never confuse a blood brother with a brother-in-law.

Another complication could be if this was a situation where the enumerator was filling in the schedule on behalf of the Head of Household, and got confused when he was filling in the schedule on the doorstep, or, later when he was transcribing the schedule into the enumeration book.

You pays your money and takes your choice

David

CatrionaL · Post by **CatrionaL** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:12 am

On an 1851 Census I had the surprise of finding two wee lasses aged 4 and 6 down as daughter in laws to the head of the house!

Step daughters I would imagine. I hope!

Catriona

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:42 am

CatrionaL wrote:On an 1851 Census I had the surprise of finding two wee lasses aged 4 and 6 down as daughter in laws to the head of the house!

Step daughters I would imagine. I hope!

Catriona

Excellent point which I missed !, i.e. we distinguish today very carefully between "-in-law" and "step-", but back then the terms were often synonomous.

David

ninatoo · Post by **ninatoo** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:08 pm

Well thanks for the input....I have altered my tree, and since Bridget and Mary were sisters I didn't have to erase anyone in the process, so I guess that was a bonus!

I wish Bridget Cronin had NOT married a Logan, then there wouldn't have been the confusion! So now I wonder if Hugh and James were related at all, apart from being brothers-in-law! Oh well, maybe one day when I win lotto I can go to Ireland to search for them.

Thanks again,

Nina