Hi again David,
In regards to the 1841 Census, that has got to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. To require accuracy in age for children up to 15, and then require older people to round off in 5 year increments, despite them being intelligent or not is just simply a waste of a good census. No doubt someone in the beaurocracy thought it a good idea at the time.
On a previous email you stated that an Elinor Quine was involved, and I had had her as my ancestor grandmother for many years, but for the life of me I could not find a burial notation for her, so she was a mystery woman for me. Now that I know that she is the first marriage and Margaret Cowley is the second, then it all falls into place. Many thanks for the correction!
You also stated the following:
"So if go on births to the two families , you would expect Thomas to have
parents William and Catherine. The hot favourite would be the one ch 6/9/1767
in Malew to William Clucas and Katherine Corkil.
For the same reason Margaret Cowley's parents should be Robert or William and
Margaret , so this is half right with what you had , maybe confused because
Thomas snr already had son Thomas , but he did call another son William."
Why do you say "you would expect Thomas to have parents by the name of William and Catherine?" I seem to be missing the point here because I do not see that. Can you clarify that for me? Also later in the same email you make another assumption on similar lines. That may need to be explained to me also.
fondest regards
Barry