In 1738 Virginia would "son-in-law" always mean step-son?

Question

The abstract from a 1738 will made in Spotsylvania, Virginia includes "son-in-law James Williams"; all the others mentioned are brothers, sisters or mother. Can son-in-law always be taken to mean step-son, or were there exceptions? This is the Ancestry link.

The testator supposedly married the mother of a James Williams, but she had two other young sons from her previous marriage and is also supposed to have outlived him. I'm trying to figure out why they would not have also been mentioned if that marriage actually happened.

Comments

In New England at that time, I believe it could mean either daughter's husband (the modern usage of the term) or step-son.

---

Yeah, it definitely included spouses of blood relatives.

Answer 1

I was just looking at a Will abstract from Colonial VA and it used son-in-law the same as we do today.  I believe the difference is back then in-law included other things, like step-child (which I don't recall seeing used then).

Answer 2

No. Step-children were not generally confused for in-laws. True, step children were not always typically identified as such, because their stepfather was, legally their "father" This is apparent in early census records where a spouse has brought children from a previous marriage into their second marriage. But in-laws are often identified. Also, step children were typically not adults, although males at 16 could select a "guardian" (ad litem) if their father died intestate to look after their financial interests (it was a fiduciary role, not that of a surrogate parent). Hope that helps.