Why is that every time I feel we might be starting to loosen a brick in this wall something comes out and reinforces it instead?
I have had a more detailed look at all the children baptised St Marys 1808-1822. In baptismal order:
Charlotte bapt 1808 buried 1823 aged 15 So far so good, but then....
Charles bapt 1810. 46 in 1851 census, 56 in 1861. So born 1804/5. Marries 1828.
Eliza bapt 1810. Married Thomas Hall 1829, Eliza Hall wife of Thomas in Cross St in 1851, aged 45. Born 1806 ?
James bapt 1810. 39 in 1851 census (so born after baptism!) possibly buried 1861 aged 54???
William - don't have a clue!!!!
George bapt 1822, 34 in 1851 census, 44 in 1861, 63 in 1871. So born 1816/7. Marries 1839.
The overall impression is that we cannot assume the more usual birth not long before baptism, and some of them are pretty unreliable at recording their ages.
Turning now to Elizabeth buried 1825. The record says 30 at death, but she was of Cross St., as was baptism of George. The only NFHS CD marriage that generates an Elizabeth Tuckwood is 1803. I cannot see a possible matching baptism.
I have also been pursuing Sarah Tuckwood. NFHS CD does not have a suitable baptism. In 1841 she is 50, in 1851 she is 61, born Norwich. She would have been 39 in 1829, so it would look odd if she married William jnr even if he were born 1806. There is no evidence of Tuckwoods in Norfolk, so making it likely she was a widow in 1835. The only NFHS CD marriage generating a Sarah Tuckwood is 1829.
Have we reached the stage where we have to say that either there are potential gaps in the data that mean we can't sort it out, or alternatively that the dats is sufficiently inconsistent that we can't sort it out?
