How sad. I agree with your brother, too. Having been there myself, I'm sorry to say, until your daughter understands what's happening, she won't do anything about it. It can be subtle and the things he says may seem right to her, at least for now. Trying to fix things from the outside won't work, it will only alienate them both right now. If she does understand what's happening she's probably terribly torn right now, between loyalty to her husband and loyalty to her family. She may sense that something isn't right, and she may feel very embarrassed that this is happening to her. She needs to protect the kids, too. It's certainly important to keep lines of communication open, in a non-threatening, non-judgemental way. Everyone needs to be supportive, invite them to dinners, family gatherings, etc. She may slowly come to realize how his behavior is keeping him from her family. Her husband is very insecure, and by doing this he feels strong, in control. If your daughter has to continue to refuse invitations, she may eventually realize what's happening and start to take control of her life back from him, as far as her family is concerned. He'll probably just back down if she stands up to his unreasonable behavior. Obviously, this isn't a good marriage, and they'll need counseling prior to their divorce, but that's probably where it will end up.

After perusing the suggestions here and doing lots of web surfing I've pretty much discarded my initial hunches. Now I think one of the keys is the leavening agent. Evidently, hartshorn was the traditional leavening agent, as Carol says. Most people today probably use baking powder, as called for by many recipes. But there are at least two types of baking powder. I have reason to believe my grandmother used Davis double acting, which I believe has a heat activated compound as well as a water activated one. I don't think she used hartshorn, although that is possible. I need to ask my mother if she knows. My daughter has both Davis and Rumford in her kitchen and doesn't recall which one was used in previous years' springerle. Rumford is also labeled as double acting, but is faster acting and may be exhausted during the overnight drying period called for by most springerle recipes. The purpose of drying is to retain the sharpness of the embossed designs during baking. Rumford says this about their product: "As an all-phosphate baking powder, Rumford Baking Powder does not contain any aluminum. This property makes it somewhat faster acting than typical double-acting baking powders. Youâll still see a boost of leavening in the oven, but most of the reaction occurs in the mixing bowl. While this makes a more delicate crumb structure in the finished product, do not dawdle. Youâve got to work quickly for best results." Well, an overnight drying period is some serious dawdling. I'm thinking that Rumford baking powder is not a good choice for springerle. I think springerle needs either hartshorn or a baking powder which includes calcium aluminium phosphate. Of course, there are other factors such as proportion of ingredients, amount of mixing, baking time and baking temperature which must be considered too. Drying time doesn't seem to be critical. Lengthy beating of the eggs and sugar, as mentioned by Grainlady, is sometimes emphasized. I don't know the reason for that, incorporating air I guess. My daughter's results improved when she switched to a recipe using cake flour. If I understand it correctly, that would jibe with the cautions against developing gluten. But it is unusual for a springerle recipe to call for cake flour. In my OP, I failed to mention a feature of my grandmother's springerle because I didn't know how to describe it. In a couple of sites I found, there is a discussion of springerle having a "foot". This is an oval base on the bottom of the cookie which raises it slightly off the baking sheet. That feature is familiar to me. I don't know if that is what happened to bcskye's springerle which "kind of puffed out of the bottom". Maybe so. That's my progress report for know. I'll let you know of any further developments. In the mean time, take a look at some of the sites featuring springerle on the internet (the one linked below has some nice photos) and tell me what your experience has been with different brands of baking powder.

"You are right, but this is about extras, not CS. If SM feels that on top of CS and regular necessities SD requires (during her 50/50) that BM is expecting Dad (and therefore SM) to pay for extras, I can see her problem." The problem is that not only are there bound to be plenty of costs for "extras" that are going to be incurred in raising children (I mean, if we're considering anything beyond food ---but not necessarily FAVORITE food, just food--- and, like, Hanes 3-pack basic white tees as clothing and the cheapest uglist Walmart notebook and Dixon Ticonderoga #2 pencils as "extras")... but that the definition of "extras" is very debatable... "It would feel like BM considers her husband's money as separate and not to be used for her child, but SM's to be part of Dad's available income. Who would be purchasing the sports equipment if there was no SM, and therefore no item to borrow? Assuming Dad's income was the same, and his CS and custody the same, could he afford this item on his own, or would he ask BM to split the cost? (BM could use some of her CS, or ask her husband to help.)If both parents were still single, how would the item be procured?" I just gathered that there happened to be already in existence in the house an item of the kind that was required, which was not being used by anyone else at the time it was going to be needed. In that case, why SHOULDN'T OP's daughter be able to use it? Is it inconceivable that OP's daughter would loan something to her step-sister in a similar situation? Has that never occured before? I mean, yeah, I suppose that for everyone to be perfectly even and everything to be perfectly fair, there should be two of absolutely everything in the house for each of the girls, no matter how easily worked out a sharing plan may be... just so nobody feels like BM is "getting off scot free" or "taking advantage" of the already-purchased hockey stick (or whatever it is). But why spend the extra money (which Dad would be, since he's presumably already paid for half of his step-daughter's item, we can presume he'd be paying half of this item too) or insist or suggest that someone else (BM) spend extra money when there is a perfectly good item right there, which will not be in use, and which the user of (step-sister) has already agreed to lending? It's not costing step-sister or SP anything to lend it, and if it's damaged it won't cost them anything either b/c Dad & BM would pay for a replacement. The only reason would be to (pardon the pun) "stick it" to the person(s) who would be asked to pay for a second one, in one way or the other. Now, obviously, if the item is lost or damaged, or if OP's daughter will be using such an item more frequently in the future, then it's appropriate to purchase another. But to go around and imply that anything shared in the house that's an "extra" has to be purchased separately even for one-time use is just not very family-like. In intact families, no one would dream of proposing a waste of money (on anyone's part) or excessive consumption (and clutter?) of this sort as a general practice... I guess that's what I find so colossally sad in these blended family situations. That, as much as many SP's regard the situation like the SK's are "spoiled" b/c they have two households, it's just as often that they end up getting shafted b/c everything gets nickel-and-dimed and bickered over to death. And I'm not even really thinking about in the *material* sense, but psychologically... How do you think it feels growing up where every little item or expense you require as a kid is argued over, debated, and you're made to feel like you're such a source of financial burden and your parents arguing all the time and the expenses paid for are all conditional on how well you (or your mom) behave? Like someone's sitting there all "ca-ching! ca-ching!" every time you express a cereal preference that costs an extra 80 cents, or scowl ("deduct a dollar for the "extra"-nice notebook b/c of your attitude! I don't HAVE to do anything for you!")... and you may, perhaps, be in the regular presence of a step-sibling who (b/c his/her parents aren't divorced) doesn't face the same kind of nickel-and-diming, or you feel like you have to run a decathalon of requests and requests-for-requests to DARE to borrow the item of its "rightful" owner, whom it WAS procured for, presumably without much hubub... I CERTAINLY can understand the need to budget to the point of splitting hairs (b/c there's no choice) when funds are tight (but in OP's case it didn't sound like that was necessarily the case)... but when the situation is more comfortable, nickel-and-diming is unnecessary and rather depressing. Not to mention an enormous waste of energy and a veritable minefield packed chock-full of potential explosions at every little teensy turn. (Which, btw, ain't so great for the marriage, either...) Come up with a plan, an agreement, based on reality, decency, common sense, and what you think "family" should mean and general principles of what will/won't be split (or set a dollar amount limit, or an age limit, or limit the extracurricualr activities by quantity). Figure out and decide once and for all on the definitions of "extras" you and spouse agree on and everything should fall into place. If this can't be agreed upon between current spouses, it is not the ex-spouse's fault, and they shouldn't be dragged into the mess. If the CS arrangement is unsatisfactory to both current spouses, seek to have it changed instead of whining/nickel-and-diming/b.s. psychological games. If it's satisfactory to one spouse but not SP, or if expenditures just CANNOT be agreed upon no matter what, then maybe consider splitting finances. But acknowledge that it is the CURRENT SPOUSES who cannot agree on expenditures or come up with a workable plan, so it isn't anyone else's fault or burden to bear if you two can't work it out between yourselves.

There will be no Social Security records because Social Security did not exist yet in 1900. You do have some data: the first marriage and the birth of the first 2 daughters. Does the marriage record contain the bride's maiden name and the names of her parents? If so, gather as much information as you can on these persons: 1st wife with married and maiden names. the 1st 2 daughters. Her parents. If the 1st bride had siblings, check these out for additions to their households. Sometimes, children from a failed marriage were placed with and Aunt or Uncle. Also, check out siblings of the grandparents. If you find nothing, look for death indicies in the area where they lived. If nothing, then run the indicies of local newspapers. If the bride's parents had siblings, check these out for additions to their households. Sometimes, children from a broken marriage were placed with an great Aunt or Uncle instead of the grandparents. Also, check out the siblings of the bride. If there was a divorce, there should be a record of this at the court house. If there is no record, the first wife could have died. Look up listings of major disease outbreaks in the US. Did one of these plagues hit at a time that could have wiped out the mother and her daughters? There is a possibility that the mother left her husband and spirited her children away. She went into hiding and her record might be cut at this point.