In message <000501c4f348$a4aea3c0$92ae2e50@expletive>, Reg Oakley <regoak@tiscali.co.uk> writes >Thanks John for your response to my query. >I am in a situation where the oldest bit of definitive info I have of my >ancesstry is the marriage at Upper Winchendon Sept 1761 of William Oakley >and Elizabeth Hester. >The only William Oakley I could find in baptismal records is the one at >Oakley in 1734 quoted. There are a fair number of earlier Oakleys (the spelling is immaterial, of course), stretching back over the centuries, so I doubt that a foundling is involved. Have you checked Cuddington, for example? >Your suggestion of a "foundling" ie abandoned child does seem >feasible. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society