Dead or Alive? Divorced or Widowed?

As shown in 1911 and 1912 directories 

It's tempting to assume a spouse is dead when we wee someone listed as widow or widower. Such was the case when I found my 1st cousin 3x removed listed as a widow in the "St Joseph, Missouri, City Directory" in both 1911 and 1912. Though the addresses were different (but near one another), the message was the same. Amanda was, sadly, a widow.

Amanda Hortense James (1844-1932) married Fred Smith Lathrop March 29th, 1882, when she was 38 years old. It was her first marriage. Due to her age, it wasn't surprising they had no children. I felt a bit sad for her. She finally married, only to lose her husband. But this wasn't really the full picture!

When I got around to adding the 1910 census for Amanda, imagine my surprise to see her listed not as a widow - but divorced (and living with her sister).

Year: 1910; Census Place: St Joseph Ward 8, Buchanan, Missouri

But, in the 1920 census, she was once again listed again as a widow.

Year: 1920; Census Place: Chicago Ward 23, Cook (Chicago), Illinois

There were clearly two versions of the story. It wasn't unusual at the time for a divorced woman to say she was widowed, or perhaps even still married. Divorce still had quite a lot of stigma attached to it at the time. I tended to lean towards divorced since the 1910 census was the earliest mention of it, but with conflicting information, I had to set out in search of more records.

Fred Smith Lathrop (1852-1927) wasn't really high on my research priorities list. But this glaring difference in the records made me go back and give him a second look. Turns out, I found another marriage record for him from August of 1905, when he married a woman by the name of Josefa. I also found him in the 1910 and the 1920 census (though he was misrepresented as Ted instead of Fred in 1920). But, in both cases, the unusual name of Josefa made it clear I was looking at the same couple. Fred and Josefa remained married until Fred's true death in December 16tn, 1927.

Amanda never remarried. She continued to use the Lathrop surname until she passed away in April 1932. I'll never know if she claimed to be widowed to avoid social stigma, she was embarrassed, or because the divorce had been so painful she preferred to say Fred was dead. I still haven't located a divorce record to shed light on the reason for the split, or exactly when it happened. But it was clearly between the 1900 census, when Amanda and Fred were still together, and his next marriage in 1905.

This really reminded me not to make assumptions, and not to take everything at face value. Whenever possible, it's always best to have more than one source for the most important facts of birth, marriage, divorce, and death. Granted, there are time periods when finding even one record can be challenging. And it may not always be possible to verify every date. In some cases, we just have to make an educated guess. In these cases, I try to use "about" "before" or "after" to help remind me to watch for more information, and to indicate to others I'm not 100% sure - so they will hopefully be equally cautious and perhaps locate a record I've not yet found.

Could They Be Related to Doc Holliday?

1872 John Henry Holliday**

I was talking with a coworker (we'll call him Tom to protect his identity) at lunch on Friday. He asked if I ever do genealogy for others. I shared I had done some volunteer research for another co-worker, in search of his father's biological parents. He was interested to hear we believed we'd found solid leads in the right direction, but needed DNA confirmation before moving forward again. (Will the DNA test ever be done? I'm thinking probably not....but if it is...I'll be happy to pick back up where I left off).

Anyhow, Tom went on to share his family story of potentially being related to Doc Holliday. He's always been interested in trying to prove the connection. As a follow up, I asked if he was interested in actually doing the research, or just interested in finding out if it was true. As I suspected, it was the latter. 

He provided me the name of his grandfather, from whom the family story had been shared. (This turned out to be an important stepping stone later.) I told him when I get frustrated working on my tree, maybe I'll give it a go for him. I realize, being related to someone famous is typically more family story than family truth. But still, I thought it might be a nice diversion at times to poke into the history (without feeling like I need to do the level of detail I maintain in my own tree).

So, I started a tree on Ancestry where I could begin to flesh out Tom's family tree. I easily found him in public records, and his parents from a newspaper article. And then hints stopped. Normally, the more hints I save the more hints I get. It didn't hold true in this case. But the all-important name and birth location of his grandfather came in handy! I plugged it in, and voila! I was back in business. 

I spent an evening deciding the main facts I'd save, and just who would make it into this tree (vs. just being listed for reference in the notes field). It's not quite a "quick and dirty tree" since I may want to share the results (and have them be a useful jumping off point if anyone wants to do further research), but it's also not an incredibly detailed tree. I'll hit the basics (birth, marriage, divorce and death) as well as the added facts of residences, military service, and burial locations (just in case anyone ever wants to visit cemeteries). I'll certainly save all applicable records, but I won't take the time to mine all the facts. It should be more than enough information if anyone in his family has an interest to take it further in the future.

A quick Google told me Doc Holliday (born John Henry Holliday) was born in 1851 in Georgia. He had no living descendants of his own. He had one biological sister and one adopted brother, who both died young. Tom's family lore places him as the great-granduncle of Tom's grandfather (if the story is being relayed correctly). Given Doc Holliday's one biological sibling (the one potentially making him any kind of uncle, grand or otherwise) is known to have died young, it's already a big red flag. It doesn't mean there's no possible distant connection, but I'm not holding my breathe.

After just one evening, I'm at Tom's great-grandparents (born 1898 and 1902). I'm going to need to go back quite a bit further. I'll likely need to be able to reach into the 1700's (not always easy, or even possible, to do). Thankfully, others have researched Doc Holliday's ancestry, and I was able to find some names to watch for. Will they match up to anyone in Tom's tree? Not likely, but it's still a fun exercise for me. I just hope Tom won't be disappointed when/if nothing turns up. 

No matter the results, it's still a fun family story. Stories shape families in imperceptible ways. There's nothing wrong with passing them down (but preferably with the caveat they may or may not be true). And who knows? Maybe the genealogy bug will bite someone new and they'll take the tree and run with it! For me, it would be a successful outcome if this helps inspire just one new family historian.

**Photo is public domain from 1872

New Ancestry Sticky Notes Aren't Small Screen Friendly

I finally got the new Ancestry Stickies feature today....and I am not a fan. In a world where lots of people have big screens and/or multiple monitors, small screen users are often overlooked when it comes to ease of use. Recent Ancestry changes have NOT been user friendly for small screens....and I would bet it holds true for iPad users who access via the web, and not the app. My laptop is an ultra portable with a 13.3" screen.

I'm a big user of the Notes field. I use it to track extended family members of people married into my family, multiple spouses and other children I may not want to research - but I need to know who they are, and the info needs to be visible so I can properly assess new hints. And equally as important, the regular Notes field syncs to FTM, so it's the best place to add notes that need to be in both places.

Stickies essentially obliterate my view of all of this information. As you can see in the screenshot, you can't even see my Notes if I start to add one. Even in the default view, the feature takes up 1/2 of my Notes field and I now have to scroll to see all my data because Stickies are at the top of the field. To be able to see Stickies AND Notes, I'd have to scale down to less than 75% of my already small screen size, and I literally can't even read the text.

It was bad enough when they changed Quick Edit and the slider closes the Notes/Tags/Comments and they have to be reopened every time. I tried to roll with the punches on it, I know change is inevitable. But now, Stickies are compounding the problem. If we could move them to the bottom, toggle them when we want to use them...or better yet...give them their own heading like Comments, Notes and Tags!! (instead of slapping then on top of the Notes field)...it would be amazing, and potentially one of the best new recent features. But as it stands, the implementation is absolutely awful for small screens. 

Introducing changes in a thoughtful and meaningful way for users is just as important as dumping a whole lot of new features onto the site. Making sure changes work for those using various types of devices is an extremely important part of website design (for all websites). If, like me, you use a small screen and find these new changes frustrating, be sure to submit feedback on Ancestry's site. Occasionally they listen and sometimes even make changes as a result of user feedback. I don't really want this feature to go away (I'm just frustrated), but it would be really nice if it had been implemented in a way not rendering a widely used field almost useless for a subset of users. How do you feel about the new feature? Have you encountered any challenges with the recent site changes?