The more prudent trees online show no parents for Mary Ann Hipwell. As there appear to be no records which show her parents, it must be pure speculation to show them as George and Eliza, and which bears no resemblance to the known facts. Mary Ann was born 1764/5 according to her trial and her age at burial. Her birthplace you say was St George Hanover Square, London, but I don't know the source of this. That she lived there in 1790 doesn't mean she was born there. Many people moved into London from the provinces at that time, so she could have been born anywhere. At the age of 26 she might even have been a widow in which case she wouldn't have been a Hipwell at all.
George and Eliza married in Huntingdonshire in 1768 and baptised 10 children in Colmworth Beds. It strikes me as highly unlikely that they would have had a child then waited 3 or 4 years before marrying and producing 10 more children in short order. In any event that child would have been baptised as Loveding, Eliza's maiden name, even if George had admitted to being the father.
Whilst I've seen plenty of cases where a second child is given the same name as an earlier one, it's always been where the younger child had died. I agree with John - I can't recall ever seeing a case where there were two children both living with the same name, although I accept you may have seen some.
You say you have George and Eliza as being her parents. What's your evidence for this, as I can find none? I've seen far too many Ancestry trees where the sheep mentality has taken over, and people have copied other folks' trees, and before you know it a critical mass builds up with people thinking, "well if all those other trees show her parents as George and Eliza it must be right".
I'm not saying categorically that George and Eliza aren't the parents of Mary Ann, but to me it looks to be very unlikely.
David
