Hi Peter and thanks for your reply. Its greatly appreciated. >I've done a bit more investigating and I think you might be wrong on a >couple of scores. > >From the data I've seen, my theory is that there were two (perhaps three) >SMITH families in >Stagsden. Yes but they were all related. The Thomas you mention later on in your reply was actually the son of James' half-brother John (james and John had the same father, Titus Smith but different mothers). >James SMITH + Mary SEAMARK had 7 children between 1834-1850. John 1834, >Titus 1836, Jane >1838, Mary 1842, William 1844, Caroline 1848 and Joseph >1950. The later births suggest that >James did not die before 1850. They actually had 9 children in total if you include the mysterious Thomas, plus George born in 1840. James died on 26th November 1850, some 5 months after the birth of his last child Joseph. Mary (Seamark) is listed as a widow on the 1851 census. >The other family was that of Thomas SMITH and Catherine (or Caroline) >Barcock. They had >Thomas 1831 (died 1832), Ann 1832, James 1835 Betsy 1838 >and Mary 1844. Strangely only >Betsy seems to give birthplace as Stagsend >in 1861. James' record show he married a Susan >Keetch. In 1851, Betsy has her birthplace listed as Kempston!! Yet more mystery. And I've got the one you call Thomas from 1831 listed as a James! As I mentioned above, Thomas is, I believe, James' half nephew (for want of a better description) despite Thomas being older than James. When James was born, his father Titus (and therefore Thomas' grandfather) was 64 and on his second wife. Thomas's own father John was born some 40 years prior to his half brother James, to Titus's first wife. >I initially was thinking that your James could be the 1835 birth. His wife >wasn't Susan Keetch was >it.? Not as far as I am aware as yet. His great grandmother though was Jane Keech, who married a John Vaux. >But looking at the 1845 entry that I can't trace, I'm now wondering if he >wasn't christened >Thomas. That would explain a lot. How would I get round that then? Any suggestions? >Do you have access to 1861 Census? I would be looking closely at the family >of Thomas born >1845. I hope he wasn't living away from home. I do and Thomas born 1845 was living with the widow Mary in Stagsden, listed as her son. This is what makes me think his marriage certificate is wrong. The older Thomas was married and living in Kempston with Caroline but no young Thomas. >But I think Thomas 1845 is your man. And I think he is named after his >father Thomas and an >earlier brother that died. I must admit that the thought had crossed my mind but the evidence suggest otherwise. I'll just have to keep digging. Once again, many many thanks for your suggestions, they are certainly food for thought. Allan