27 March 2012

A Female Bigamist?

Comments after the jump.


 1880 Marriage #1 to Jackson Hayes
 1882 Marriage #2 to Elisa W. B. Hayes

 Born       M#1     M#2   Unknown Spouse

 1882     William Hayes         
 1883     Annie Hayse
 1884     Damascus Hayse, Iona Edenfield (married name)
 1886     Allen Hayes, Nannie Pearl Hayes, Naurice Hayse
 1888     Mattie L Hayse, Mattie L Hayse
 1890     Elam G Hayse
 1892     Rosa Tom Edward Hayes, Georgia Hayse, Rosa F Hayse
 1893     Cletis Hayes, Cletis Hayes
 1894     Kittie G W Hayes, Rosa T Hayes
 1898     Jas F Hayse, James F Hayes

 All names are as they are spelled on this tree (i.e. Elisa instead of Elias, Hayse and Hayes used interchangeably, etc.). 

ⓑⓐⓡⓚⓘⓝⓖ  ⓤⓟ  ⓣⓗⓔ  ⓦⓡⓞⓝⓖ  ⓣⓡⓔⓔ

It boggles the mind! In bold is the name on the record attached to Lydia's profile. Here's the list of records:

 1900  Hayes: Jackson & Mary, William, Allen, Mattie, Cletis
 1900  Hayse: Elias & Lydia, Annie, Damascus, Nannie, Mattie L, Elam G, Rosa F, Georgia, Jas F 
 1910  Hayes: Elias W G & Lydia N, Grady E W, Rosa T, Kittie G W, James F 
 1920  Hayes: Lydia, Rosa, James F living with the Edenfield family, MIL to head of household
 1930  Lydia Hayes living with the Edenfield family, MIL to head of household

One wrong record and a person's profile makes them look like a bigamist. Excluding the first census above there are threads connecting each record to the next. Though more research is needed for definitive proof, the odds are good that those four are for the same family. The 'G' after Elam could stand for Grady and the 'G' after Kittie could stand for Georgia. With the 20 gap before the 1900 census it's possible that Iona (1920 & 1930 censuses) was born after the 1880 census and out of the house by the 1900 census or that she and Annie are the same person.
What thread connects the first record to the others? Both families have a child named Mattie and both families live in Georgia. That's it. Similarities end there. That census record doesn't even include Lydia's name! Look at the parents in the first census record above, Jackson & MARY. Who the heck is Mary?
If you're going to attach a record to someone, and subsequently add a husband and children from that record, you might want to make sure their name is on the record.
Show your ancestors a little respect and don't make them look like bigamists when they're not.

PREVIOUS POST: A Must Read Book for 'Newbies'
NEXT POST: With Your Own Eyes

1 comment:

  1. Very good point. Another thing I recently ran into an obituary for when an older woman died, a very good friend was listed as an "adopted" grand daughter even though she wasn't, but rather was a dearly loved friend. I can see people in 100 years running across this obit and making wrong assumptions.