APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2009-06 > 1244912585

From: <>
Subject: Re: [APG] Follow-up on "Prodecy" (1910 census)
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:03:05 -0500
References: <27F829ABF1B447469FC7000882B80AB8@YOUR58BA15CF1B>
In-Reply-To: <27F829ABF1B447469FC7000882B80AB8@YOUR58BA15CF1B>


Your hypothesis is plausible. Now what tests can you put it through to prove

One thing strikes me about your discussion: The only records you have
mentioned are censuses. Personally, I'd be extremely reluctant to base any
conclusion on just one type of record. Is there absolutely nothing else on
these individuals in the local records you haven't mentioned--county and
circuit court minutes (as well as probate and property records), church
records, newspapers, etc.--that would help your hypothesis rise to the level
of the Genealogical Proof Standard?


Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
APG member, Tennessee

-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf
Of Richard A. Pence
Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2009 9:01 AM
Subject: [APG] Follow-up on "Prodecy" (1910 census)

In response to my query regarding the relationship intended with the
(probably misspelled) term "Prodency," Carl Oeman sent along the following:

>>> Black's Law Dictionary defines PROGENER: Lat. In the civil law. A
grandson-in-law. <<<

Carl also notes that this same enumerator used the term in another instance.

We have the relationship of George D. Pence to Mahala F. Pence in 1900 as
"adopted son." In 1910, George D. is listed in the household of John B.
Pence along with John B.'s mother and is listed as "Prodecy."

John B. Pence is listed as a widower in 1900 and 1910.

Does this sound like it might fit:

John B. Pence married a woman with a son named George D. and she soon died,
leaving John B. with a step-son, who was "taken in" by John's parents (James

and Mahala Pence), per the listing as "adopted son" in 1900.

The 1910 listing is for John B. Pence (again shown as "widower"), his mother

Mahala and George D. Pence.

I'm thinking that the enumerator wanted to indicate that George B. was the
"step-grandson" of Mahala and mistakenly tried to use the Latin term for
"grandson-in-law." (In-laws and step-relations are often confused in census

Put a bit more clearly: George D. is John B.'s stepson and Mahala's
step-grandson and that is the relationship the enumerator was attempting to
describe when he used the term "prodecy."

Does this make sense to anyone else?

Richard A. Pence
3211 Adams Ct, Fairfax, VA 22030-1900
Voice 703-591-4243 / Fax 703-352-3560
Pence Family History <www.pipeline.com/~richardpence/>


To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in
the subject and the body of the message

This thread: