{"id":109092,"date":"2026-06-22T10:24:01","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T14:24:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.genealogybank.com\/blog\/?p=109092"},"modified":"2026-06-22T10:30:52","modified_gmt":"2026-06-22T14:30:52","slug":"genealogy-challenge-tracing-mary-drapoes-8-marriages-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.genealogybank.com\/blog\/genealogy-challenge-tracing-mary-drapoes-8-marriages-part-2.html","title":{"rendered":"Genealogy Challenge: Tracing Mary Drapoe\u2019s 8 Marriages (part 2)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction:<\/em><\/strong> In this article \u2013 the second in a four-part series \u2013 Katie Rebecca Merkley continues the story of Mary Drapoe\u2019s astonishing eight marriages! Katie specializes in U.S. research for family history, enjoys writing and researching, and is developing curricula for teaching children genealogy. She has a website: krgarnergenealogy.com<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

In Part 1<\/a>, we examined newspaper coverage of Mary J. Drapoe\u2019s eight marriages, noting inconsistencies in the accounts. By evaluating the reliability of sources and checking other records, we can gauge the accuracy of the information. We will continue this four-part series by doing this and looking at other sources to verify the claims in the newspapers.<\/p>\n

\"Photo:
Photo: bride and groom cutting wedding cake.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Photo credit: https:\/\/depositphotos.com\/home.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Correlating Research Data<\/strong><\/p>\n

In most of the newspaper articles, the informant (i.e., the source for the article\u2019s information) was not mentioned, so it is impossible to determine the level of authority of the information provided. In a couple of the articles, one of the lawyers involved in one of Mary\u2019s divorces was the informant. Lawyers would have disclosed what they understood of the situation, which may or may not have been accurate according to the parties involved.<\/p>\n

\"An<\/a>
New York American (New York, New York), 16 November 1904, page 3<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In some of the articles, Mary herself was the informant. One newspaper indicated she\u2019d been interviewed. Another newspaper article, shown below, was written by her.<\/p>\n

\"An<\/a>
New York American and Journal (New York, New York), 27 November 1904, page 48<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In this article, Mary writes:<\/p>\n

Seven husbands have taught me a great deal about the nature of man, and I am quite willing to hand on my information to the rest of my sex. It is the easiest thing in the world to get a husband if you only go about it in the right way.<\/p>\n

I began my conquests at fourteen. Am now thirty-five and I am on my eighth \u2013 my eighth genuine conquest. He will step in when number seven steps out.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It is easy to assume that the article Mary wrote, or at least the ones she was interviewed in, are the most accurate \u2013 but that may not necessarily be the case. When Mary was the informant, she or the journalists relied on her memory. How accurately can a 35-year-old remember when they were 14? In one newspaper article, Mary admitted to having difficulty remembering how many of her past husbands were divorced and how many died. This could explain the discrepancies in the various numbers between all the newspaper accounts.<\/p>\n

Memory is not the only factor here. How did Mary feel about being interviewed about her marriage history? The Philadelphia Inquirer<\/em> article below, in describing how the journalists rushed to interview her on catching husbands, said she \u201cwas obliging. She gave her recipe unhesitatingly.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"An<\/a>
Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), 16 December 1906, page 9<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This, along with the fact that she wrote an article, suggests she was willing to share information. But it is uncertain how honest she was in her willingness to share. Did Mary exaggerate a few details to make her stories more exciting? Or did she provide as honest answers as her memory would allow?<\/p>\n

It is also important to note that fact-checking mattered less to journalists back then than it does now. Newspapers cared more about collecting and publishing sensational stories.<\/p>\n

For this reason, genealogists do not rely on a single record type. We gather and correlate evidence from many types of records.<\/p>\n

Research to Verify Newspaper Claims<\/strong><\/p>\n

Timelines can be a useful tool in genealogy research. It was certainly a good way to keep track of all of Mary\u2019s husbands, helping me determine when to search for marriage, death, and divorce records. My folly was that I had done so based on only one newspaper article. The singular article allowed me to estimate some of the dates, but most of those were a few years off.<\/p>\n

Checking other records helped fill in some of the details in her marriage timeline. For example:<\/p>\n

Husband #1<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mary J. Drapoe and Edward B. Wakeman married in New York on 19 November 1882. (1) Subtracting 14 from this marriage year puts her birth year around 1868.<\/p>\n

Husband #2<\/strong><\/p>\n

A death notice confirmed the death of Henry A. Saunders of New Haven, Connecticut. He died at age 28 on 10 July 1888. (2)<\/p>\n

Husband #7<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thomas Crowther and Mary Lindley (her previous husband, #6, was James Lindley) married on 12 June 1901 in New York City. He was 55, and she was 34. (3) The record appeared as an index-only record on FamilySearch, but the image was available to view at a FamilySearch center. The image always has more information than the index. In this case, it revealed Mary\u2019s middle name to be Jane \u2013 another important detail to add to her story.<\/p>\n

Continuing Research<\/strong><\/p>\n

I have not yet finished finding all the vital records to verify Mary Jane\u2019s serial monogamy. This is a lot to research; I have to not only find the marriage record for each husband, but also a divorce or death record, depending on how the marriage ended.<\/p>\n

Usually, it\u2019s tricky to research a widow who\u2019s remarried, because you may not know her new surname. I\u2019ve had numerous projects where both spouses dropped off the census records. When this happens, it\u2019s either because both spouses died or because the husband died and the wife remarried.<\/p>\n

For a female ancestor who remarried multiple times, you have multiple surnames to find out and work with. Mary\u2019s appearance in the newspapers for marrying so many times means we know the names of her first eight husbands. She would be difficult to track, but fortunately the high number of her marriages made her newsworthy.<\/p>\n

Besides locating the vital records of the known husbands, I\u2019d like to determine whether Mary had additional husbands. Two more have been identified, bringing her marriage count up to ten. There may have been more\u2026<\/p>\n

One tried-and-true research strategy is cluster research, or FAN (family, associates, neighbors) research, which involves researching other people associated with your ancestor.<\/p>\n

I used this method to identify one of Mary\u2019s husbands. I searched GenealogyBank\u2019s Census Records<\/a> for Mary\u2019s mother, Lucy Drapeau (Drapoe), and found her in the 1920 census living with her daughter Mary \u2013 and Mary\u2019s husband, Clarence Smith. I found Mary\u2019s mother in this record: Smith family, 1920 U.S. census, Derby, New Haven County, Connecticut, population schedule, E.D. 255, sheet no. 31A, house no. 80, Lucy Drapeau in household of Clarence Smith; digital image, GenealogyBank (https:\/\/genealogybank<\/a>: accessed 12 May 2026).<\/p>\n

\"Photo:
Photo: Smith family, 1920 U.S. census, Derby, New Haven County, Connecticut.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Since Mary was such a big news item when divorcing her 7th husband and marrying her 8th, it seems possible that she would have made the news with more divorces and marriages. Therefore, newspapers will be consulted to identify more husbands.<\/p>\n

If the only information we took from the newspapers was the vital information about Mary\u2019s marriages, we could end this blog series here. But we\u2019d be missing out on some very juicy information. If your ancestors were mentioned in the newspapers, it usually indicates that something in their lives caught journalists\u2019 attention. It\u2019s stories like these that flesh out our ancestors.<\/p>\n

Keep your eye out for the next article in this series to learn about the drama that the newspapers captured about Mary\u2019s divorces and marriages.<\/p>\n

Stay tuned\u2026<\/p>\n

Create a free account<\/a> at GenealogyBank for 7 days to start your journey and discover the stories your ancestors left behind.<\/p>\n

Note on the header image:<\/em><\/strong> wedding cake and champagne glasses. Credit: https:\/\/depositphotos.com\/home.html<\/a><\/p>\n

_____________<\/p>\n

(1) New York State Department of Health, Marriage Index, 1881-1967, marriage index entry for Edward B. Wakeman and Mary J. Drapoe, 19 November 1882, South East; certificate no. 7091.
\n(2) \u201cDied,\u201d entry for Henry A. Saunders, New Haven Evening Register, 11 July 1888, pg. 4, col. 5; imaged, GenealogyBank (https:\/\/genealogybank.com<\/a>: accessed 20 August 2025).
\n(3) \u201cNew York, New York City Marriage Records, 1829-1938,\u201d database, FamilySearch (https:\/\/www.familysearch.org\/ark:\/61903\/1:1:24SJ-2SY?lang=en<\/a>: accessed 7 April 2026), marriage index, Tom Crowther and Mary Lindley, 12 June 1901, Manhattan, New York City, New York, certificate no. 12052; citing New York City.<\/p>\n

Related Article:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n