Malissa Ann "Ethel" Rose

PROOF CLASS: FATHER = ARGUMENT · MOTHER = INFORMANT (insufficient), graded by Owen 11 Sep 2026, flags 1/0 - summary ancestry/proof-summary-297-rose-parents-2026-09-10.md; mother reopens on a record naming Sarah with a child of F725. ARGUMENT, 11 Sep 2026 - FATHER. (1) She married in Franklin Co., Tenn. on 12 Aug 1844 under the surname Rose ('Benj Catchings To Malisa Ann Rose', Marriage Record Book 1 p. 64, cit 7084), solemnised by John D. Lynch J.P. (2) In that county there was one Rose family: none in 1820 (FS index, K586, control 3,505 persons); in 1830 three households - Washington, Thomas J., Elinor - in one neighbourhood (K571, K585); in 1840 four - Washington, Stephen, C. C., Sebern - all on one page, p. 70 (K584); the 1850 index corroborates the tree's children list for F725 name-for-name (K586); the only other Rose family, 1850, is North-Carolina-born. (3) A girl of her cohort (b. 1820-25) is in Washington Rose's household in 1830 (F 5-10: 1) and 1840 (F 15-20: 3), where no other Rose household in the county holds a girl 15-20; the tree gives him exactly three daughters c.1825. (4) John D. Lynch, the J.P. of her marriage, is on the same 1840 page; Sebern (= Seaborn [3197]) heads a household there. Nothing names her father; the link rests on the single family, the matching daughters' cohort across two censuses, the place and officiant of her marriage, and a corroborated sibship. CONFLICT, weighed at grading: in 1830 Washington's house holds ONE girl 5-10 and in 1840 THREE girls 15-20, so two of the three were not tallied with him in 1830 - Elinor Rose's 1830 girl 5-10 is a candidate for the difference, and a niece or younger sister absorbed by 1840 cannot be excluded by a tally (nothing on record supports that reading either; 1830 age-column miscounts are common). Father half reopens on Washington Rose's Franklin Co. estate or heirs' deed, 1850s (alive 28 Oct 1850, absent from the 1860 candidate household, K573): a settlement naming Malissa Catchings would be DIRECT. MOTHER, held: Sarah is Washington's wife by record in 1850 (K572) and the one adult woman of his 1830 and 1840 households aged forward; but the 1830 household also holds a boy and a girl 15-20 (b. 1810-15) whom Sarah (b. c.1800) cannot have borne, so an earlier wife is not excluded, and Sarah is evidenced only from 1830, after Malissa's birth. Mother half reopens on a record naming Sarah with any child of F725, a dated marriage of Washington and Sarah before 1820, or a record placing the 1810-15 children as relatives. The 7 Sep reopener 'her birth county' (K424) is answered as far as a census can: b. 1820-25 in Franklin Co. or wherever the family was between 1820 and 1830. NOT claimed: that any record names either parent; that Sarah's maiden name is Crownover; that Elinor Rose is Washington's mother; which of the three 1840 girls is Malissa. The Putnam Co., Ga. 1816 marriage (Washington Rose x Elizabeth McGehee) belongs to a different man, who heads a Putnam household in 1830 (K575, K577), and is not evidence about F725. Audited 25 Jul 2026 - Junction #4: 1850/1860/1880 censuses read; TX migration mapped (Travis/Williamson, near Rose kin). See ancestry/catchings-branch-research.md §4. ── ADDENDUM 31 Jul 2026: SHE HAS HER FIRST CITATION. Until today she carried ZERO across all three OwnerTypes. The 1860 census of District 13, Franklin Co., Tennessee (p. 179, dwelling 1763/family 1734, PO Winchester) was READ FROM THE IMAGE and shows her at 38, heading a household of eight children, with $370 personal estate and NO real estate. ⛔ THERE IS NO ADULT MALE PRESENT — consistent with [296] Benjamin Franklin Catchings Sr's death in 1858-1860, and the reason this record is attached to HER ONLY. The 27 Jul queue entry said it would 'evidence both parents at once'; it cannot — it does not name him. ⚠️ The 1860 census has no relationship column, so her children are inferred from household order and ditto marks, not stated. ⚠️⚠️ Ancestry's index gives 'INFERRED SPOUSE: James H Catchings', who is her 18-year-old SON — do not accept that hint. ⭐ Her age implies b. ~1822 against the tree's 'abt 1825'; NOT changed, because a census age is not a birth record and the existing value is already approximate. *(was)* 7 Sep 2026: both halves declined as census co-residence only, flags 0/0, 1850/1860 carrying no relationship column, no Rose in the WPA Franklin Co. indexes (K418), reopening on her birth county (K424) - graded before the 1830 and 1840 households were read on the image, before the wife was named by any record (K572) and while the Putnam 1816 marriage stood on F725. Superseded 11 Sep 2026 as an opinion, not overturned as a fact.