Back in 2009 someone uploaded a PDF file to Ancestry.com about Charles Russell and his will. However, they titled the PDF upload with an insinuation that the Eliza Reed, named as a granddaughter of Charles Russell in his will, is the same Eliza Reed who married Blaney Palmer. This would have her mother being a daughter of Charles Russell, Mary, who married a Thomas Reed.
Problem is that the Eliza Reed mentioned in the will has a paper trail which conflicts with the assertion hinted, by the pdf file's title, that she and the Eliza Reed, who married Blaney Palmer, are one in the same person. They are not. The only way to have it work out that Eliza Reed, who married Blaney Palmer, was Charles Russell's granddaughter mentioned in the will would require Blaney Palmer Sr's wife, Eliza, to commit bigamy plus manage to live in two different areas, with both husbands, the rest of her life.
I know, so far this is a confusing read, but that's the part of the problem as the association is confusing because it appears, somewhere along the line, someone mistakenly thought that there was only Eliza Reed born in Ohio or something like that - and not open to the possibility there could been more than one or consider that Eliza/Elizabeth was a popular name.
Here is my breakdown of what discrepancies I noticed in the claim:
· · Eliza Reed, daughter of Thomas Reed and Mary Russell, is said to been born in Gallia County, Ohio. Eliza Reed, who married Blaney Palmer, is said to been born in Butler County, Ohio.
· ·: Eliza Reed, daughter of Thomas Reed and Mary Russell, married in Gallia County. Ohio. Eliza Reed, who married Blaney Palmer, married in Butler County, Ohio.
· · Eliza Reed, daughter of Thomas Reed and Mary Russell, is listed in the 1850 US Census for Gallia County, Ohio with her husband and two Russell cousins - no children for the primary couple listed. Eliza Reed, who married Blaney Palmer, is listed in the 1850 US Census in Ripley County, Indiana, with Blaney and their daughter, Mary.
· · Eliza Reed, who married Blaney Palmer, is listed in the 1860 US Census in Ripley County with Blaney and three additional children (so up to 4 children in the household). In 1860 Eliza Reed, daughter of Thomas Reed and Mary Russell, is listed in 1860 US Census with her husband, John, in Indiana - but not in Ripley County area.
As interesting as the children of Thomas Reed and Mary Russell were and all, and it would be nice to list parental names as well as siblings for Eliza A. Reed Palmer ... Mary Russell and Thomas Reed appears to being the wrong couple to attach Eliza A. Reed Palmer being their daughter; and, in doing so, would only have the tree, for her, go off track and be incorrect with listing her with the wrong parents and grandparents.
Goodness knows there were a lot of Reeds in Ohio in the early to mid-1840s and the hash-mark style of earlier US census reports doesn't make it easy to narrow down to just one particular Reed. However, we have the information, from Eliza's "In Memory Of" that one of the children wrote after her death and marriage records, that contain references to Butler County, not Gallia County, in Ohio as to being the main area likely of more interest. Eliza Reed who married Blaney Palmer married him in Butler county, Ohio in 1848 and there were other Reeds living in the general area of Butler county of where she married Blaney. Using personal research of the officiator of their marriage, and where the officiator resided at in the 1840s, I have it narrowed down to two possible prospects, and I am leaning more toward one couple as to being the likely parents, who lived in the same area of Butler county for the US census in 1850 (2 years after she married) and also in Butler County for the 1840 census. I have them listed as potential parents of her, with the phrase "possible - not proven" included as part of their names to make it clear, to others, that a piece of the puzzle is not yet been confirmed or verified, just that it is possible. Could that other male Reed be related somehow to Thomas Reed? Possible, but as I said - there were a lot of Reeds, from Pennsylvania and Virginia, who went to Ohio between 1810 and 1840s, and many were siblings or cousins.
The problem is, on Ancestry, if you search or look through the 'hints' shared by Ancestry's side for Eliza Reed - that 2009 PDF pops up near the top of those search results. Which means people see her and/or Blaney's name in the title of the PDF file and just click to attach it to (the wrong) Eliza Reed ... which only helps to continue having it pop up (erroneously) in the results for Eliza Reed Palmer. Therefore resulting in quite a few people who, based upon the 2009 pdf file "as a source", list Thomas and Mary Russell Reed to being her parents ... which means they naturally then add Charles Russell to being her grandfather. All this primarily seems due to that pdf file's title thoughts.
So the naming thoughts/false "research" shared only helps to continue sharing the incorrect information. Kind of similar to, as an example, on how people continue to list Blaney and Eliza Reed Palmer to having a son named James due to a census taker error in the 1860 US census where their daughter Jane was mistakenly listed to being a son named James - and they will even list that James as to passing away prior to 1870 versus just removing non-existent James as a child of the couple and correctly putting the 1860 census to Jane; even though they will tell you "I know" that James never existed. Why? I don't know. The only excuse I can think of to keep the fictional child on the family tree is to only continue the theory that " since Blaney and John both had sons named James, then their father must've been named James ..." and citing Irish naming tradition thoughts as the basis. Which that theory doesn't really pan out, since both men did not have a son named James ... but then you have people using one baptismal record to create a set of twins (therefore create a James William Palmer) for Sandford Palmer to say they have found the parents and grandparents for Blaney and John, but the only evidence being a "one size fits all" baptismal record and a marriage record for a William Palmer marrying and nothing else to even remotely connect Blaney to Sandford Palmer's family tree - and nothing, on Sandford Palmer's side, to connect him to being the father of a William James Palmer either (in terms of any later records or him every being said to have a son named William or James, born around 1803 or 1805, attributed to him)
Oh well, I digress ...
As a side notation, I have purposely chosen to not link the pdf file shared on Ancestry.com within this article. I am hoping that what I shared here will help shed a little light and prompt others to double check/research on their own (to see if their conclusions match mine when it comes to Eliza Reed of Gallia county, Ohio) and to, possibly, hopefully, edit their trees accordingly and perhaps, eventually, have the person, who titled the pdf file to include Blaney Palmer's name as part of it on Ancestry's site, to rename the pdf file.
