In a message dated 5/27/2004 11:19:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ri1654@earthlink.net writes: I think we can safely assume that the small town of Bellingham did not have dozens of widows who married again during a sixty year period, especially since earlier marriages can't be found for the vast majority of these women. So, I think we can assume that after a change of town clerk in April of 1754 the new clerk referred to all women being married as Mrs and that he used Mrs as a contraction for Mistress. This is certainly a reasonable assumption. When someone is listed as "Mrs" in that time period in Bellingham, it will be necessary to use other records to be sure of the person's previous marital status. In my research, I found a woman with a child listed as "Mrs" in Bellingham. Since she had a child, I assumed she was a widow, especially with the "Mrs" designation. Wrong! She had never been married and had the child out of wedlock. This I was able to prove using other records. This is what everyone will need to do when they come across a "Mrs" being married in Bellingham in that time period. Maybe, if we prove or disprove a previous marriage for anyone in the above category, we should post it to this list. That way we can help others who may be researching the same family. I'll post mine in a separate email. I hope others will follow. Sue Susan M. Hillier Roe Seal Beach, CA SueMHR@aol.com "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead, 1901-1978