RESPONSE: You didn't provide any ages. When I looked at the 1900 Clay, I realized that it couldn't be them. Unless there is some type of a mistake on the Index on the date of the marriage. I can see this particular couple have just gotten married. The only clues are that this particular James is age 21, b. 12-1878 in KY; Sphia b. 1-1883, age 17 and next dwelling and most probably some type of a close relative is: Dwelling 132-140 HOOKER, Joseph, head, b. 12-1875, 24, "mar. 2 yrs, b. KY; parents b. KY . .Kate, wife, b. 3-1880, 20, mar. 2 yrs, b. KY . .Ellen, dau, b. 5-1900, 0/12 mo's, KY NOTE: Marriage Index for Clay says: 31 July 1898, File 29 HOOKER, Joseph to HARRIS, Kattie When you look at the 1880, there is an 8 year old Joseph in the home of James, 53 HOOKER, an apparent widow and with a dau., Catharine, 21 and a bunch of other mostly teens and a few younger ones. There is Joseph, 8, Lucy, 7, Zilphy, 4, and a 10 month old Barton which may be the one that caused her death. Okay, I am going to start over. 1880 Clay Dwelling 206-206 HOOKER, James, 53 (an apparent widower), b. W W N . . Catharine, 21, dau, KY (Catherine was 9 yrs old on 1870 - should be only 19 yrs.) . .Elizabeth, 19, dau, Ky (Elizabeth was 8 on the 1870 - should be 18 yrs old) . .John, 16, son, KY (John was 6 on the 1870 - age okay) . .Daniel, 13, son, KY (Daniel is 3 yrs on the 1870) . .Nancy, 10, dau, KY (Nancy is l yr on the 1870) . .Joseph, 8, son, KY * * . .Lucy, 7, dau, KY . .Zilphy, 4, dau, KY . .Barton, 10 mo's, KY * * Now going back to the 1870 Clay Dwelling 328 HOOKER, James, 43, b. NC . .Emily, 38, housekeeper . .Mary, 17, at home . . Clinton, 16, work on farm - (on 1860 Knox Co.) . . Franklin, 14, work on farm . .Margarette, 12 at home . .Catherine, 9 . .Elizabeth, 8 . .John, 6 . . Sally, 5 . .Daniel, 3 . .Nancy, 1 Now when you move forward to the 1900 Clay, James and Joseph are living side by side so they most likely were brothers. Yet there is no James b. abt. 1878 on the 1880 Clay. Personally, I will take a bet that James was James "Barton" , the baby listed on the 1880 Clay. Then Joseph living right next to him was born sometime bet. 1872 which is what the 1880 says and the 1875 which is what the 1900 says. On the 1910, Joseph appears as follows: Dwelling 189-191 HOOKER, Joseph, head, 38, mar. 1, mar. 11 yrs, b. KY; parents b. KY . .Kate, wife, 27, mar. 1 mar. 11 yrs, 4 born; 4 living, b. KY; father b. VA; mother b. KY . .Allen, son, 10, KY . .Sopha, dau, 7, KY . .Lawrence, son, 5, KY . .Rachel, dau, 2, KY NOTE: This Joseph has now "re-aged" back to the 1872 vs. the 1875 from the 1900. Don't really see James or James Barton. This "might" be him but if it is, then I don't understand the wife, etc.: Dwelling 62-63 HOOKER, James, head, 30, mar. 1, mar. 8 yrs, b. KY; parents b. KY . .Lucy, wife, 30, "married 2 times, mar. 8 yrs, 8 born; 7 living, b. KY . .Rosa, dau, 6, KY . .Emmer, son, 5, KY . .Willie, son, 4, KY . .Lula, dau, 3, KY . .Stella, dau, 1, KY Joyce Taylor Collins La Palma, CA p.s. I think I have presented more questions than answers. In a message dated 2/19/2005 9:20:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, CharlotteAnneMlr@aol.com writes: > Joyce, > > ok, thank you. I am trying to figure this out because it can't be that > James > and Sophia because the ages are wrong. > > Charlott