> "You have posted, basically, this same query numerous times over the past 6yrs. There comes a time, when it's best to put people "to rest", and move on. -- phylg" <
That's a good point and so often so true phylg.
I didn't investigate the past queries. However, this particular query is not complete; the Original Poster has more knowledge, can tell more facts, and can share sources. Are past queries more complete?
A more complete sharing of information and sources might yield results. For example, these three women swirl in out of nowhere, without parents and without children and without siblings. The OP surely knows more about the children or siblings or husbands of one of these women - else why bring them up? The OP might consider that additional information might be vital in adding clues.
All family history quests are connected to somebody else. We search from person to person or family to family. There's always a context of relationships, which is usually stated, but in this case is not. Also, when we are born as babies our minds are a blank slate. Everything we know has a source. We learned it somewhere. Knowing what is the source of a bit of information is VITAL to the interpretation of it. So often sources are not stated, as here, and thus volunteer researchers are at a loss to know how best to use the source or whether to even trust the information.
Oftentimes a close attention to the above is not needed, because a family or individual on a family tree jump out quickly and easily from the records. The above comments are always true, but they become critical when a person or cluster of persons are hard to find. Often times women fall into this category of "hard to find" - as marriage obscures their identities.
Another point: When posting a query, the Original Poster must be prepared to check back immediately, that day, and certainly in the following days. A genealogy hunt isn't a product of a machine, as if one pushes a button and out pops the answer and you can come back and fetch it, silently, at any future time. Rather a query is the beginning of a discussion. When posting a query, one should be prepared for a dialogue and collaboration. The dialogue may involve answering questions that are easily addressed - but only by the Original Poster, because only he/she has family knowledge or understands the mysteries of what he/she omitted from his/her query.
So that's another question about the past queries - was there a give and take? Did the OP remain involved? Or was the OP absent, as here?
People may appear to have been "looking" for years for someone, yet from the point of view of a genealogy hunt, in a very real sense they haven't even begun to look. If they are omitting key and relevant data, if they are absent from their own collaboration, and so on, the answers are far less likely to be found.
That's a very long way of saying that another option, in addition to giving up, would be to beef up the hunt and really pour some attention and care into a query and be present for the following discussion - and generally take the collaboration seriously.