# Who is an "in-law"?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-an-in-law/618751>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [April 14, 2012, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-an-in-law/618751 "2012-04-14T11:17:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2012, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-an-in-law/618751/21 "2012-04-15T23:41:37Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> I would expect to see everyone born to a set of parents and their spouses at a family gathering; I wouldn’t expect to see the spouses’ siblings there, as those siblings haven’t married into the family…

That depends on whose gathering it is, doesn’t it? If a couple hosts a dinner, they might well invite the siblings of both of them, in which case you _would_ be at dinner with your sibling’s spouse’s siblings. And if the siblings on both sides bring their spouses, as is entirely reasonable, you might even find yourself at dinner with your spouse’s sibling’s spouse’s sibling’s spouse. Though I’ll grant that you’re unlikely to stretch it any further than that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![StephenG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7feea3/32.png) [@StephenG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StephenG)\
**Post date:** [April 16, 2012, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-an-in-law/618751/22 "2012-04-16T00:05:13Z")

</div>

You make a fair point, **Chronos**. I certainly wouldn’t call you wrong for referring to a more distant relation at such a gathering as a sibling-in-law. However, I suspect my suggestion describes the conventional limits.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-is-an-in-law/618751.md?page=1)