On Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:07:47 +0100 "Barbara Mallyon" <[email protected]> wrote: > Thatcham is not far from Kingsclere, so it is quite possible that > they are related. I have Bridgemans at Newtown also > > William BRIDGMAN baptised 23 June 1780 Kingsclere re Bishops > Transcripts, I have as married to Amy ALLAN. > > John, you have a William BRIDGMAN baptized on 6 April 1782 - St. > Mary, Kingsclere married to Amy ALLEN, which William did Amy > marry ?? There is nothing in the marriage entry to give a clue, both being of Kingsclere Parish and married by licence and both made their mark. The 1780 William was recorded as being of Town at baptism and the 1782 William of Dell. Amey Allen's father was of Town. There are no burials around birth dates to eliminate either one. I can find a William Bridgman in the 1851 and 1861 Census in Kingsclere, a pauper widower age 73 and 84 respectively, but no trace in 1841. The burial at St. Paul on 20 May 1863 of a William Of Mill Green age 87 has to be this William as he is recorded as a lodger in Mill Green in both Census. All these recorded ages would make this William 3-4 years older than a 1780 birth would indicate. Abode given at two of William & Amy's children's baptism was Common and the last of the 4 I have recorded was born at Crookham, so maybe more children were born there. This suggests William & Amy were living in the north of the Parish so he is probably the William buried at St. Paul. I can find no sign of Amy's burial in Hants or Berks burial indexes or on FreeBMD. Both William Bridg(e)mans would have been under the age of 21 in 1798 so marriage by licence is appropriate whichever it was. However, having looked at the two Williams again, I think it more likely it would have been the 18 year old rather than the 16 year old that married Amey, so have altered my database and I now have William, son of Joseph & Mary, married to Am(e)y Allen. -- John Lewis Debian Linux with Geneweb genealogy application