Oh boy, there's a lot to think about here, thanks Anne! The Brindle family is definitely the same group, and you've got to think that the James Hulme is the same person in both. His age jumps from 10 to 23 in 10 years, but then Abraham Brindle jumps from 2 to 14! The Alice Butterworth is really odd as, if it's the same person, she jumps from 40 to 66!! Even allowing for rounding down in 1841, she still jumps from 44 to 66! Now, if we assume that this is the right James (he is born in Halliwell) then he's a bit older than he should be in 1841 and much older in 1851, still possible though. I've always wondered if he was orphaned and didn't know his real age, given the way it varies on different occasions. The illegitimacy idea also works and he may have made up his father's name when he married, he certainly wasn't living with his father in the 1861 census but was a lodger in the same house as the woman he went on to marry in 1862. I'd never thought about the idea of a made up father's name. A good question is why this James was living with the Brindles in 1841 and 1851. I think he'd have to be family, though he is shown as "visitor" in 1851. Maybe his mother was a Butterworth, sister to Mary Brindle (nee Butterworth) and his father was James Hulme. If the mother (or both parents) died you might find the child with the mother's sister, especially as her mother was also living with her. I think that's a possible idea? I did wonder if Mary Butterworth was married to the elder James Hulme and they had a son, James the younger, James the elder then died or left and Mary married George Brindle. George and Mary's eldest child, Abraham is 8 to 10 years younger than James Hulme, so this is possible, but then I'd expect him to be "stepson" not "visitor" in 1851. More questions than answers, which is how it always seems to go with James! Thanks for the help Anne, this is all new information and is at least giving me something to work on, I'm really quite stuck at the moment! Cheers, Pete