Barclay, << Hannah Cobourn married Anthony Baldwin c 1717 and died before 1729. William Cobourn will was dated in 1733, but he did not die until 1741. He would still have called Anthony son-in-law, even after his daughter's death. Note that Hannah and Anthony married before 4th mo. 20, 1712 when Hannah was reported for marrying out of unity by Chester Monthly Meeting. She was disowned the next month. << Margery Hannum married Anthony Baldwin in c. 1729. and died in c. 1782 John Hannum will was dated in 1730 and he died in 1730 after the marriage. This is after the marriage of his daughter. He would have called Anthony son-in-law. Barbara's concern expressed to me was the William Coeburn was still calling Anthony his son-in-law after the death of Hannah (Coeburn) Baldwin. As family relationships were often less tidy than we genealogists are comfortable with, this can get confusing. My view is that a) Anthony had been Hannah's husband and the father of her children and was, therefore, considered by Coeburn to be his son-in-law and b) Gilbert Cope also considered Hannah to have been the first wife of Anthony Baldwin. << Anthony Baldwin died in c 1760. Before September 5, 1760 when he will was proved. Since wills were proved generally fairly close to the time of death, we may assume (although I admit this may be incorrect) that Anthony died in late August. The date of the inventory would be useful here, as it was often done within a few days of death. << One more thing. Sarah Flower, the second wife of William Cobourn, was the widow of William Flower and the daughter of Richard Barnard and Frances Lambe. Is Sarah Flower's husband William the same William Fflower who married Elizabeth Morris in 1692? If this doesn't do it, please get back to me. I can be dense. >> If you're dense, Barclay, then so am I, and we're in good company -- Gilbert Cope! Karen Greim Mullian booboopies@aol.com zeke196@juno.com karenmullian.homepage.com pastmasters.homepage.com norwoodhistoricalsociety.hompage.com flax4sale.homepage.com