David Daniell wrote: >[...] I guess by 1767 this >William was a widower and the children will have been at school in >England. I have no record of the name of their mother. That is one >of my principal objectives in this exercise. There may have been >good reason to suppress it in Burke's LG. [...] Burke took what the family gave him. The family may not have known. Anecdotal: In my (didn't leave the British Isles) ancestry is an 18C marriage that Burke LG gives as between Matthew Peters and a daughter of George Young of Dublin. I suspect that by 100 years later her name had been forgotten but there some sort of a document still existed that dealt with an arrangement between e.g. George Young and Matthew Peters and referred to the marriage of the daughter without naming her, or a painting captioned eg "Miss Young, daughter of George Young Esquire"). I have now found (from her son's will) that at the time of the marriage she was a widow with child(ren), but that would not mean her given name should be suppressed. (Her grandchildren were named ENGLISH, and related to Epaphroditus YOUNG, all in Cootehill, Cavan, Ireland. I still don't know her given name, or the name of her first husband.)