Hi Bev You said > > 1) "One I have been told is the daughter of William Harris and Elizabeth Hunt, > born around 1769". > > 2) "The other married George Dibben in 1784, at her death in 1840 her age was > given as 77 so she was born around 1763". I would not say that either of the above could be taken as conclusive. It may be the same person. (If the "77" at burial were a mistranscribed "71" for instance. Have you looked at the original source material). What is the source for the "born around 1769"? You statement makes it sound like hearsay. A marriage at age 15 could have been possible, although surprisingly rare. ------------------------- I am not trying to be difficult, but you should always challenge information which you have not seen yourself in the original documents. All the best Dave Dixon

Hi Dave >> >> 1) "One I have been told is the daughter of William Harris and Elizabeth > Hunt, >> born around 1769". >> >> 2) "The other married George Dibben in 1784, at her death in 1840 her age > was >> given as 77 so she was born around 1763". > > > I would not say that either of the above could be taken as conclusive. > > It may be the same person. (If the "77" at burial were a mistranscribed > "71" > for instance. Have you looked at the original source material). > > What is the source for the "born around 1769"? You statement makes it > sound > like hearsay. > A marriage at age 15 could have been possible, although surprisingly rare. > The "daughter of William Harris and Elizabeth Hunt" Jane Harris is in a tree I have seen, with a baptism date of May 15, 1769 The death date and age at death of the Jane Harris married to George Dibben I have been told by another researcher, being in Martin PR Yes that could be it, should be 71 and not 77, which would fit birth in 1769 - she would then have married at 15 and probably be the daughter of William Harris and Elizabeth Hunt. Unless of course there was another Jane Harris born the same year! Bev