I just sent "A quick look at RG9, Piece 3745, Folio 57, Page 16 shows that the entry actually shows her birthplace as two ditto signs under the previous entry, so it actually says she was born in Esh, Durham. How's that for an imaginative transcription, even by Ancestry's standards?" The plot thickens - in the 1851 Census, where the name appears to be Tenwick, she is also described as being born in Western Sahara but again the original distinctly says Esh. But someone has written in and added a correcting note. A further investigation shows that many entries where Esh is written appear as Western Sahara - there are 202 of them in the 1851 Census alone. I have found another Rootsweb message about this, and it appears that ESH is a country code for Western Sahara, and that transcribers have been using a drop-down list incorrectly. Adrian