Genealogy Research Tools for the Women in your Family Tree

Researching women is difficult, particularly as we move back in time when they had fewer rights and thus fewer records. Professional genealogist shares hints to find our female ancestors.

Genealogy research brick walls can be busted with these records and strategies to identify the women in your family tree. Sometimes these women get lost when their husband dies or they divorce. Sometimes, due to lack of records, they are simply difficult to find. But there are records out there to find the women in your family history and this video identifies them.

0:00 Intro
0:58 Women who disappear after husband's death
1:30 Difficulty finding women prior to 1850
1:50 Research all family members
2:15 Obtain all census records
3:00 Please subscribe, like and comment
3:35 Finding women who disappear after husband's death
3:44 Track her children
4:09 How to find second marriage records
7:37 Turn of the 18th century women - what records are they in?
7:50 Census record hints
8:29 Find ALL marriage records - civil and church
10:40 Probate records
11:10 Deeds - Dower Rights
12:34 Newspapers
13:08 Church records - death and membership records
13:31 Other records such as court records, guardianships, and county histories and biographies
13:58 Summary
14:16 Links to the "Finding the Women in your Family" playlist

#GenealogyWomen #FindingFemaleAncestors #FamilySearch

Music "Something Elated" by Broke for Free.

[roberthowe]

Great video Aimee. In addition to looking to see if the woman is living with a child after her husband dies, I check out her brothers and sisters too. I have found woman living with a brother or sister in the census records several times.

[GoldieMay]

Great video! That really cemented the reason for checking probate records for women -- because they're entitled to 1/3 of the land, and they need to sign off on it. Thanks!

[MrHarryreed]

What I love about these videos is that not only do you explain how to do the task, but you are outstanding at explaining why we should do them.

[ridif]

In two cases I have brick walls on 1818 birth of a girl to Scottish man and wife in Tennessee, ( as found on later census ) .. so am stuck with a first name only and not knowing surname of either parents or the county in Tenn. they lived in. This Helena married 3 times afterward so was followable on married names. She last lived with her youngest child in 1880 in Tx but there is no record of death under married names. The Courthouse of second marriage burned down ( in Mississippi ) no records and no marriage records of first and last husband. So, as you say, the earlier you go back the harder it is to find specific records and yes, using married names helped enormously in what I've found. Great video. Thanks!

[jeslookn]

Thanks for this one. I will be checking out your playlist. I have a mother and daughter that I'm trying to find more information about. The mother was born in 1782 and the daughter was born in 1808 according to census records. When the daughter died in 1885 she was described as an old lady that was a relative of the family. Then I find another newspaper from 1873 that the mother and daughter at age 90 and 70 were going to visit friends in South Bend, Indiana. I have the 1850, 60 70 and 1880 censuses. The mother was a widow in 1850 so I'm going to be having fun finding her husband. You are so right about researching everyone in the family because mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, nieces, nephews, and grandchildren are in census records with other family members and that can lead to other discoveries. The newspaper article that you showed about people visiting other people can be so important too. I have a census record for a family with a young girl at the bottom with a different surname that is a daughter of the mother from a previous marriage to Rachel's son. No one on Ancestry knows this. The things you will find if you dig a little deeper can lead to so much.

[LeOhio]

You’ll see a lot of questions from me, as I just discovered this channel and find that many of your scenarios apply to my situation. The great grandmother that I referenced in your census video is one of my biggest challenges. Could not locate her or my great grandfather in 1910. Found them with 5 of their 6 daughters in 1920 (the youngest wasn’t born until 1922). My GGF died in 1928, but in 1930, my GGM disappeared again. 5 of her daughters were all residing in the eldest daughter’s home with her husband. She was also MIA in 1940. By that time, two daughters were deceased, my grandmother was living with my mother and uncle, one daughter was away at school, one married and the one who wasn’t with the rest of them in 1930, could not be found either. Finally, in 1950, everyone could be accounted for. 😥 What makes it even more complicated is that when my GGM was enumerated in 1900, she was 6 and worked as a servant in the household. There was confusion as to what her actual last name was when she applied for S.S. I guess someone had to do some research to find out what it was. I have the letters from S.S. that contained their determination. Baffled? So am I. Anyway, I have diligently tried everything I could think of to find her with no success. I scoured Family Search as well. After all this, any suggestions?

[TomCooper]

Another reason for checking ALL of the census records is that the census data in a single census may be wrong. It is very unlikely that they will all be wrong, however. The example I have is my mother's grandfather. I was told he was born in Wisconsin. But everyone's on-line trees said he was born in Vermont. All of his siblings (both older and younger) were born in either Jericho or Underhill, Vermont. Then I found him in the 1880 census, which said he was born in Vermont. So much for family stories. But then the rest of the story...

The 1870 census says he was born in WISCONSIN!!! And so does the 1860 census. And the 1900 census. And the 1910 census. And 1920 and 1930. And then there are his children, who ALL report their father was born in Wisconsin in the 1900, 1910, and 1920 censuses. The 1880 census is _just plain wrong._

Since then, I have amassed a mountain of evidence that he was born in Wisconsin. If I had not looked at other censuses, I would never have found that evidence, because I would have been looking in Vermont. Today, his Wisconsin birth is widely accepted.

As an aside, one of the most unusual pieces of birthplace information I have ever seen is his NAME. Fayette Lafayette Davis. It's unusual because his birthplace was in Fayette, Lafayette County, Wisconsin. People may be named for all kinds of things, but the city and county they were born in?

[yeahnothx-el]

Great tip regarding removing information on the female ancestry in a search (maiden name, etc.). Thanks!

[pc]

I'm putting together stories about ancestors, weaving them with historical context and place info. I've found way more info on men than I ever imagined but zip on the women. Even general info about how women is scant. I have learned so much from you!

[santiagozepeda-yamanaka]

This was actually very interesting to watch, since all of my female ancestors are Hispanic, therefore, due to their culture they never changed their surnames throughout their lifetime even if they married. This makes it a lot easier to find them because their “maiden” name their only last name. I never thought about how difficult it could be to find women who change their surnames. Nice video! I am definitely subscribing to the channel

[RandHall]

Congrats on your new channel. I can tell you've done your homework. Great content and production.

[dennisstewart]

I enjoy your channel and the Topics you cover

[andreadavis]

I love your content and the authenticity of your personality, it’s endearing. It’s so nice to hear someone go in-depth and truly explain the strategies.

[m.moseley]

This is very valuable information, especially about searching under a woman's married name. I was always told that it was good genealogical practice to trace a woman under her maiden name. I have a great grandmother who was married 4 times (widowed twice, divorced once). It has been challenging finding all of those marriage licenses. And, as you mentioned, when she remarried, she did so under her married names. So now I have another way to find remarried women in my tree. Also, I had an odd search recently where the woman's married name was "Head" and when she became widowed she was listed in the 1910 census as "Head, Emma, head" (of household). Took me a while to figure that one out. I wish I had seen your video first!

[scottmcgraw]

A single woman raising children in the 1800's would often report herself as a "widowed" head of household to the census enumerator. However, it is a good idea to keep looking for the husband, if his death record is not readily available. More than once I have found the "deceased" husband remarried and starting a new family in another state! Probably more socially acceptable for the first wife to say that he died, in order to avoid the stigma of admitting she was dumped by him.

[christinademello]

I have been trying to trace my maternal grandfather's mom's family, due to personal curiosity about a family story, for several years now. With the fact that his first and surnames are very very common, I have resorted to tracing it through his mom, my great grandmother, as her maiden name is not as common. (No husband listed). I managed to find him on the census record when he was about 2, but not the next one after that where he was about 12 and I have no clue as to where he went. I, however, can find him again on the census at about 22 but she's no longer on it with him. This is one of my brick walls. :/

[barbarahawkins]

OH MY Sorry about less than acceptable writing a few moments ago, I had to change computers. Well, All I know is my 4th great grandma was probably common law to my 4th great grandpa William Blalock. He was from Union County SC about 1780 to 1788. He was in Bowling Green, KY living with the William Harris family 1810 Warren County, KY BOUND TO THEM in 1806 to Samuel Harris to learn a trade of Carpenter and House Joiner until he turned 21. Ok, In 1820 census record William Blalock is still in Warren County, KY but with a supposed Common Law Wife ( never could find her name) and a few children already including my 3rd great grandma Elizabeth Blalock. Time passes, 1830 census record they are all in Union County SC
for whatever their reason was. Skip to 1840 census St Clair, Illinois. There they are... In 1837 my 3rd great grandma Elizabeth Blalock married John M Holt in St Clair, Illinois Dec. 24th 1837. John died Dec. 1845 in Edwardsville, Madison County, Illinois
and Elizabeth Blalock- Holt died Oct. 1846 Their children had to be separated. I know where they all went and who they married at least. Going forward to Elizabeth's Probate sale. There is William Blalock ( Elizabeth's father) a B. Blalock which I found to be Briant Blalock from Bond, Illinois. No One knows his parents, nor do we know William Blalock's parents. Wait, it gets better. William Blalock died of Winter fever ( Pneumonia) Feb 1st 1850 in Madison County, Illinois near Collinsville. Madison County, Illinois. NO PROBATE RECORD AT ALL. JUST THESE PUZZLE PIECES. 1855 RURAL STATE CENSUS ( PROBABLY AROUND SHILOH AREA which was still under the heading of St Clair, Illinois almost to Belleville. There's WIDOW BLALOCK never a first name ever ! I know the kids that were left with her in which 2 of those girls were to be married before long. Rebecca Blalock married an Mary Catherine married a Hinds. I find them in 1850 together with the youngest brother of my 2nd great grandma Sarah Catherine Holt. Ok, onward to 1860 census in Clinton County, Illinois ( Wade Township) There is my 2nd great grandma Sarah who married a William Banks He was from TN along with my 1st great grandma Mary Elizabeth Banks roughly 6 months old. Laura Blalock almost 8 She belonged to my 2nd great grandma's ( Elizabeth Blalock-Holt ) Brother Wesley Blalock. I have 4 cousin matches on FTDNA which proves the line. Also there with them all is low and behold MRS BLALOCK 65 years old from TN supposedly. We found out since that Mrs Blalock's age is a little bit older than 65 she was closer to 70. The idea is MRS Blalock and Widow Blalock. Good grief Charlie Brown, why no first name my my my. No one ever found William Banks ( not in Military) nor Mrs Blalock ever again. In 1868 my 2nd great grandma married again and the rest is history.

The Civil War was about to begin and people fought like cats and dogs because ILLINOIS WAS UNION ONLY ( people killed one another because a lot of folks were also southern sympathizers as well. I found this out from the Historical Society of Clinton County, Illinois. I have called everyone for every reason from the Carolina's to KY to TN to Springfield, Illinois
to Southern University Illinois Carbondale you name it very little records I have received which I am grateful for. This takes the cake for sure. I have seriously found some puzzle pieces but the rest? Nope ! Any ideas?

[barbarahawkins]

Aimee, Thank you for your NO DEEDS FOUND in SC, KY, TN OR ILLINOIS. I just wonder why my 4th great grandparents were so mysterious aloof Instead of the 1855 census stating W Blalock I found out that stood for Widow Blalock. Wonder why she did not use her given name? I am going to list the names of her children: Elizabeth ( my 3rd great grandma) William ( too young to be man of the house after his pa pa past away) Wesley, possibly Andrew, Rebecca, Martha and Mary Catherine Blalock. In that exact order by age.

[barbarahawkins]

Aimee Thank you. I shall contact you on your website via the contact email that you have on your site. I shall be specific as possible and take screen shots to send along with the message( hopefully it will work ) so you can see what I am up against in the research. You will have a much better picture of exactly what I had discussed here on your youtube page. Thank you again, I surely appreciate it. Take care Aimee.

[edgewaterz]

I have found several wills and probate records of a will being proved, inventory assessments of property that only say "for the heirs of the deceased." They list the deceased's name and then list "heirs." But they don't identify the relationships, who is a son and a daughter or a nephew, etc. Is it safe to assume most of the heirs are children? I'm hesitant to go ahead and enter them that way in my tree because it's not explicitly stated in the documents. Edit: and I have had difficulty locating any supplements to these wills and their execution that help shed light on the relationships.