Eric:

Your rather rabid response seems mostly to indicate a lack of familiarity with Kentucky law proximate to the date of the indicated conveyance.

I distinguish between inferences and conclusive proof.

The deed DOES support an inference that John COE was unmarried at the date of the conveyance. Whether this inference can be or is overcome by other evidence is quite another matter.

You fail to mention what may very well be the most likely reason that COE might not have needed his wife's signature. He may have purchased the property during the lifetime of his PRIOR wife and then remarried after her death. The subsequent wife wouldn't then seem to have a right of dower in the property acquired before the second marriage.

I did NOT take the position that the deed "proves" anything. Rather, I only took the position that the deed creates an inference that COE may have been unmarried at the date of conveyance.

I am UNFAMLIIAR with the cited transcription of the marriage record attributed to a compilation by Nora McGEE. I would be interested in knowing rther precisely what this actually says and whether it specifies a date of marriage.

COE researchers have mostly NOT been citing such a SECONDARY source as authority for the indicated marriage. Instead. folks are merely citing the UNSOURCED County History which FAILS TO GIVE A DATE FOR THE MARRIAGE thereby rendering the assertion quite suspect. The secondary source YOU cite is absolutely NO AUTHORITY for the proposition and simply reflects sloppy and unscholarly genealogy.

Moreover, after citing the SOURCE you identify, various unscholarly researchers then assert that the marriage took place in Surry County, NC. So WHICH IS IT? Did John COE marry a Nancy SCOTT in Surry County OR did he marry a Nancy SCOTT in Cumberland County or another place? And if the marriage was ELSEWHERE, then WHY pray tell would the marriage record have been destroyed in a court house fire in Cumberland? This is just utter hogwash passing for family history.

Whether or not John COE married a Nancy SCOTT or married someone else is of no great importance or source of hostility to me. Really sloppy genealogy and poorly researched and unsourced publication of speculative conclusions DOES aggravate me.

I have little doubt that John COE married a Nancy. Nancy COE's presense in the 1850 Census record supports a very strong inference that Nancy was his wife, despite the lack of any relationship status shown in the 1850 Census records generally.

*

Now I am NOT one to discount oral tradition or family lore lightly. To the exctent that such oral tradition and family lore is actually DOCUMENTED, it can be a very important aspect of evidence supporting ascription. But finding an asserted relationship in someone else's posted family tree or even in a poorly researched published family history is really no evidence at all.

* * *

Another researcher has posted what appears to be some very persuasive evidence that John COE married a Nancy SCOTT, appearing within deed abstracts for Overton County, TN. THis is precisely what I was asking about.

I was asking if there is EVIDENCE supporting the ascription. Neither the COE family history YOU cite, nor the Cumberland County History is PRIMARY EVIDENCE supporting the ascription. By contrast, the Overton deed, would seem to be rather conclusive, though NOT conclusive as to the date or place of marriage or whether this was John COE's first or a subsequent marriage.

* * *

In my view, those who post as "fact" various specualtive ascriptions WITHOUT supporting evidence do their families a grave disservice, because very often teh speculation turns out to simply be WRONG. I have no problem with someone posting their somewhat speculative ascriptions, as long as the basis for the ascription is EXPLAINED and sourced and the person REFRAINS from describing the ascription as "fact" or conclusive without a showing of the evidence.