marriages in 1860's & 70's

[Essnell]

Hi, I have been looking on various research sites for the descendants of several males in one family to trace who is related to one living person.

In the last 18 hours i came across a public tree on ancestry where one of these persons is purportedly married to either himself or to  another male with precisely the same name. There is also another spouse female and that is accurate.  In the "life story" the males are referred to as "husband".

I would say that males did live this way but were they ever married and called Husband back then. 

I have tried to find any evidence to verify this but cannot.   

I am totally stumped by this entry .   any thoughts?

Essnell

[Milliepede]

It sounds like a simple mistake on the tree. 

[Andrew Tarr]

There are all kinds of silly connections on public Anc**try trees, such as people married twice to the same person with different versions of the name; children born from parents aged about ten. etc.,etc.  Some contributors just don't bother to check the basics, never mind the harder bits.  Usually the sensible trees stand out by their consistency - and agreeing with all your own findings of course ... 

Best just to shake the salt-cellar over all of them and repeat the search yourself.

[Essnell]

Hi All, 

Thanks.  It was just soo ... totally off I just had to tell.   Still trying to sort them out as I need this for myself.  Ignoring what was there and redoing my own delving.  Getting there.

Cheers Essnell.

[pharmaT]

I know I've made silly mistakes entering data, I get on a roll of finding stuff, work on too late and get tired.  JUst last week I went to enter a second wife for a guy, I ended up adding the new wife to his first wife.  Luckily I noticed my oops moment quickly so I could fix it.