Opinions would be appreciated

[IJDisney]

Well, thank you for all of your thoughts so far.
Another update......

In 1818, 1820 and 1822 there are baptisms in the same parish. A father is named on the record and the mother would seem to be the lady I am researching.

Then there is the son I found who was base born in 1825.
Then there is another son born in 1828, also base born.

I widened my search and found a marriage in 1815 in a parish 25 miles away.

Looks like she was telling the truth after all.

[Hampshire Lass]

Yes telling the truth after all.

I can't find what happened to her husband though and also cannot find a baptism for her in the parish she says she was born in. There is a baptism in the parish. ....25 miles away....where she married for the first time.

That's probably a little lie for poor law reasons though.

So I've probably untangled her....apart from the demise of her first husband!

Thanks for your help everyone.

[Andrew Tarr]

So I've probably untangled her....apart from the demise of her first husband!

It's always difficult to reach a definite conclusion about most old records.  If the record you want IS present (a) it could be someone else (depending how unusual the name is), (b) it is probably not the original and may have been mis-copied, (c) it may have been falsified (less likely I think).  If you can't find it (a) it may have been mis-copied, mistranscribed or not yet indexed at all, (b) the records may have been lost or destroyed, (c) the event was never recorded in the first place, or (d, again) false details may have been given or the recorder entered them incorrectly.

Our problem may be in inventing elaborate but tempting scenarios to explain what we find  . I have a great-uncle who disappears from records about 1904.  The only pointer is a snippet of folklore which says he put his head in a gas oven.  He was about 30, single and still living with his parents in Liverpool.  Just make something up.

[Hampshire Lass]

Hehehe....I'll go with bigamy then.

Only joking!  I know I'm lucky to get that far back with accuracy and so am still accepting I may be wrong with what I've untangled but feel I'm in  better place with the details of her life than I was last week.

[Andy_T]

I agree with some earlier comments from Greensleeves that labelling terms on parish records unfairly labels people for life and Andrewalson that it’s tempting to fill in gaps to explain what we find.
My 4 times great grandmother Hannah Thurman seemed to have had 2 children out of wedlock at Appleby Magna, Leics in 1776 and 1780. I always thought it was odd that the 1776 Appleby parish record, only names my 4 x great grandmother, no father mentioned, no “bastard (D)” entry and no “base born” or “natural born” entry.
In 1780 she had my 3 times great grandfather Richard Thurman and he’s described as the “base born" (S) of Hannah Thurman and JOSh Hear. The father was a joiner in Appleby and married to Mary Hear with 2 daughters. I recently found records in nearby Polesworth, Warwickshire where Hannha’s family lived and it seems she married twice in the parish of Polesworth and her 2nd marriage to a William Hull she was described as a widow on the Polesworth parish marriage  record.
Adopting Andrewalson’s point I am tempted to fill in the gaps and suppose that the 1776 birth of a daughter Elizabeth Thurman could have been that of her second husband William Hull but how odd that she reverted to given family name Thurman and not Hull?
By the way my 4 times great grandmother married for the third time to a William Smith in 1786 and she died a widow (again) about 12 years later age 66 in the Appleby parish deaths (I think she was 70 years not 66 years).

Andy_T

[majm]

Are you certain that that use of the word 'widow' actually meant she had been formally married and that her lawful husband had subsequently died prior to her next marriage ...

I explain ... is it possible that the clergy chose to give her that status on her m.c. as she was known to be a woman supporting a child without a husband present to support them both .... 

That broader meaning was frequently used by clergy in the British Colonies down  under until around the time that Queen Victoria became a widow when her husband died ...

Clergy were not expected to encourage 'criminal intercourse' in the colonies,  and were bound to follow church law ahead of civil law and similar broad interpretation may have prevailed for this lass.

JM

[Andy_T]

In reply to majm: " Are you certain that that use of the word 'widow' actually meant she had been formally married and that her lawful husband had subsequently died prior to her next marriage ...

I explain ... is it possible that the clergy chose to give her that status on her m.c. as she was known to be a woman supporting a child without a husband present to support them both ....  "

She was married twice in the parish of Polesworth Warwickshire 1st time to Thomas Earp in 1767 and 2nd time on 19th October, 1771 in Polesworth to William Hull. I attached the transcript of that here.

What I am saying is odd is that on the birth registration of Elizabeth Thurman at Appleby in 1776, Hannah is not described as a widow she is simply described as Hannah Thurman. No "bastard" daughter, no "base born" or natural born descriptions either.
What I don't know is was Hannah a widow for the second time (had William Hull died) or did she leave him and revert to her given family name Thurman?
Also was William Hull the father of Elizabeth Thurman or was it somebody else - I don't know?

Andy_T 

[majm]

Sorry,  but may I note that My reply was not specific to AndyT's post,  but to the broader question first posed in the Opening post.

JM

[Andy_T]

To majm, I apologize for jumping in on your reply and I will put my conundrum in a separate new post later.

Andy_T