Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Regional: U.S. States: Indiana Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Re: Fannie L Nickerson b. Indiana May 1886
Posted by: Sue (ID *****3046) Date: October 06, 2005 at 08:41:31
In Reply to: Fannie L Nickerson b. Indiana May 1886 by Sabrina Runion of 35587

No relation, read your post and just adding my two cents worth...

1930 census
Fannie and Elmer married 14 years. She was 30 at the time of her FIRST marriage. Info here fits that Elmer was her first and only husband.

1900 census
Yes it shows M under marital status, but for # of years married it shows 0. If she was recently married, then why wouldn't she be living with a husband as his new bride?
War? Marriage Big Mistake??? Enumerator's Error???

I cannot find any mention of a marriage of hers on any subscription or online site during this time frame. I cannot locate her, or her family, in the 1910 census.

LDS does have films for rent. Items you might want to check out from there is:
Marriage records, 1845-1919; general index to marriages, 1845-1951 Ohio. Probate Court (Wyandot County)
films from this category within the time frame your looking:

General index of marriages, v. 1-2, 1845-1951.
FHL US/CAN Film
905930

Marriage records, v. 6-7, 1886-1899.
FHL US/CAN Film
905934
Marriage records, v. 8-9, 1899-1911.
FHL US/CAN Film
905935

IF she was truly married by age 14, then there's a good chance something should show up on one of these...

Another item you wrote "Elmer Delbert Robinson b. 1880,". It sure seems a very strange coincidence to me that "both" men in Fannie's life were named Elmer D, both surnames started with an R and both were born around the same time and claim Ohio birth and actually born in the same area. Makes me wonder who actually entered the information into this bible, or if Elmer was raised by some Robinsons. And I find it too another strange coincidence that their son is named Delbert...Elmer's middle name. I would think that might infer that they "got" him as a newborn or very young infant.

And there's always the chance that maybe Fannie was pregnant & unmarried in 1900, which is why they claimed her to be married on the 1900 census. Wouldn't be the first time such a thing happened, but it's still a long shot that of course is unconfirmable.

Quite a mystery you've got here!


Good Luck!





Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/in/messages/28923.html
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2009 Ancestry.com