Cathy > I think you misunderstood what I meant -- or I misunderstood what you > said... > Well, I think we're spot on the same wavelength. > > I thought that between 1851 census and 1856 marriage of my Ann, that perhaps > the first Anne Knibbs could have married and become Ann Russell -- could > have been in the same quarter -- but maybe not. Pure conjecture especially > since Ann was a very popular name. There are no Ann KNIBBS marriages recorded in the GRO between 1851 and 1856 [except one Lincoln District 02qtr1856] but in the same 03 quarter 1856 and Lambeth District the Ann and Anne marriages appear, so hence my comments. The references are the same which suggest a duplicate but it's possible, I had supposed, that the 1851 Pauper Ann in Lambeth may have married perhaps only days before your Ann, who was definitely in Lambeth in 1856. > > The second curious thing is about the 1851 census -- although Ann White > Knibbs would have been a widow in 1881, in 1851 she was still bearing > children with John -- through 1855 I believe and would have been about 40? > That's close to 44 -- but then she'd have been nearly 50 when her last child > was born -- would that be unusual? And she would have had to return to > Woodstock by 1881. Yes, I can only square these facts if somewhere along the line we've got the wrong Ann and/or the wrong John. It was the Charwoman coincidence that got me going! I think you would be quite right to discount my comments, at this stage at least. > > I think it's the amateur detective work that is a great part of the > attraction of this hobby. > Absolutely, couldn't agree with you more. bfn Alan