Thanks for your reply Graham. PDGPM3-Risk, Graham Lovelock wrote: >James > >Regarding your message of 12 July: > >Agree all your Burbage conclusions. > >ER: > >Have you got Sarah DOUST bap 4 May 1800 and Elias DOUST bap 8 Mar 1807, bur >29 Sep 1837, other children of Philip D and Jane L? > Yes, I did have the baptisms of the other two children of Philip Doust and Jane L. > >I wonder whether Mary Willmaut is the one buried on 4 Mar 1752? > I don't see a burial for Mary L 4 Mar 1752 at ER in the Lovelocks in Wiltshire file! > >The Marys bur 9 Feb 1783 and 10 Sep 1790 could also be Mary Elford or Mary >Chivers, and 9 Feb 1783 could also be Mary Wilks. (I think that means we get >nowhere with which is which unless there is some other material). > I had Mary Elford bur. 7 Aug 1765, since the record states "Mary ye wife of Stephen Lovelock ". However, you're quite right that we don't seem to have sufficient evidence to assign these two burials. Robert had flagged these entries (L) but I was only speculating as to the actual assignments. Robert? >Harriett Culley's age was recorded as 25 in 1841, 37 in 1851, 55 in 1871, 66 >in 1881, and 77 in 1891, none of which matches with a 73 year old being >buried in 1894. However, the only other Harriet I can think of is the widow >of David L of WR, who was 71 in the 1891 Census. But she was buried at WR, >as one would expect, on 11 Mar 1898 aged 78. So I suppose the ER burial must >be Harriett Culley, with an inaccurate age, unless we can find her in the ER >Baptism Register and prove that she always over-estimated her age (something >of a first!). We know from the 1841 Census that her father's name was John, >her mother was probably dead, and she had a younger brother Robert. > Hmm! Rather mysterious. I've kept this assignment for the moment, but added a note with your misgivings. Regards, James