Source: The Atlanta Constitution 22 Apr 1886 page 5 column 5
Lula Cox, daughter of William Boulding Cox and Katherine Attaway. As far as I can tell she was their only child to survive to adulthood. Lula married Matthew Hale McWhorter in 1872, and they had one child, daughter Katherine Cox McWhorter. Lula is mentioned by her married name in her father’s obituary. She died in 1886 and is buried with her parents. Don’t ask me why, because I am not actually researching her.
All of that should be pretty straightforward. Except it isn’t. There is another Lula Cox who married a man named Henry Lewis Hoover in 1868. They had two children, Adolph and Estelle. This Lula Cox died in 1909. I haven’t identified her parents yet. It would have been very nice and tidy if she were the daughter of William Boulding Cox and Katherine Attaway, but she isn’t. Obviously, right?
Source: The Atlanta Constitution 6 Jun 1909 page 2 column 7
But this is what’s going on in Ancestry member trees. How was she supposed to have married Matthew McWhorter in 1872 when she was living with Henry Lewis Hoover at the time of the 1870, 1880, and 1900 censuses? This person gets extra points for having her in the 1880 census with Henry Hoover and with her parents and for including links to both Findagrave memorials. They’ve also added the obituary for William Boulding Cox, so they have all the pieces of both puzzles available to them. But for some reason they can’t see that it’s two puzzles, not one.
I’ve contacted a few of the tree owners, and most of them aren’t budging. They’re too attached to the idea that they’re descended from William Boulding Cox to consider that they may be wrong. And I think they largely misunderstand DNA matching. Of course you’re going to be a DNA match with the parents of your ancestors. But that doesn’t mean you have them identified correctly.
red paper boat 