Can anyone make sense out of this?

Question

In about 1858 Richard S. Ausley (Ausley-39) married Julia Ann Goodwin (Goodwin-2536). Richard died in 1864 of wounds received in the 2nd Battle of Drewry's Bluff.

After the war ended, Julia married John Griffin (Griffin-3729).

The records are confusing, but it appears that Julia and Richard has a son (either Thomas William or William Thomas - Ausley-40) and a daughter (Emiline - familysearch ID G66R-7FN).

In the 1870 Census, Thomas W. Ausley (15) is living with William Ausley and his wife, but no Emiline is present.

In the 1880 Census, Thomas and Emiline (nephew and niece) and living with William Ausley, Richard's brother. Makes perfect sense. Julia had remarried, and the brother took in his deceased brother's children.

In the 1900 Census, Emiline is the head of her household (with no husband listed) and has two sons, Thomas Bascom and Raymond Arthur.

BUT, in familysearch.org, her husband (not listed in the 1900 Census), is none other than her own brother, Thomas William Ausley! And her name is Emiline Frances Griffin!

BUT, Thomas Bascom Ausley's marriage records state that his father was William Ausley! And Raymon Arthur Ausley's marriage records state this HIS father was Willie Ausley!

So, did William Ausley father two children with his niece???

Comments

Is it possible there are two women named Emmiline?

---

Of course, that's always possible. But the horrifying picture that seems to be emerging is that the uncle fathered children with his niece.

Answer 1

After a brief look, I would say that Emiline Ausley, the niece listed in the 1880 census with William Ausley would actually be "niece-in-law," the wife of Thomas Ausley. She does appear to be Emiline Frances Griffin, the daughter of John Griffin's brother Abel. I have not yet found any evidence that Julia Goodwin and Richard Ausley had a daughter named Emiline, but I will look a little further. It seems that someone on family search attached her as their daughter based on that 1880 census record - but these kinds of enumerator errors are not uncommon.

Comments

The 1870 census record of Julia with 2nd husband John Griffin includes son William (listed as Griffin) age 11, but does not include a daughter Emiline. It is attached on Julia's FS profile.

---

Also, William Thomas Ausley and Emiline Frances Griffin married in Feb 1880 - so they would likely have been living together and included in the 1880 census record.

---

So. you're saying that Thomas W. and Emiline in the 1880 Census are husband and wife? But how could they be nephew and niece to William? Abel was John Griffin's brother, and Emiline Frances was his niece. How do you get to niece-in-law? Through Julia?

---

Yes, I would say Emiline and Thomas in the 1880 census are husband and wife. Census enumerators (in my experience) are not overly particular when filling out those tiny boxes for complex relations. I referred to her as niece-in-law because she is the wife of William Ausley's nephew.

---

OK. This is beginning to make sense now. I've made a number of corrections to the familysearch records to get the relationships to line up correctly.

---

I think that's a good idea. I don't always correct FS, but in cases like this where something seems to make sense and not make sense at the same time - doing so will save you headaches in the future for sure!