Hello Averil,
A risky time of the year to have a wedding in Wellington! I hope all went well, and glad you weren't blown away.

You misunderstood my point about John Looney only child of Robert/Jane Kneen bap 23 June 1750.
I was suggesting that there could have been an error in the M.I. and that this John Looney didn't die in 1783 at aged 34. If his age should have been recorded as 13 or 14 the burial could have been for John son of Daniel and Isabel.

The reason I thought the M.I. age might have been wrong was because John bur.1783 left no will and there was no administration of his estate, which seemed most unusual with both his parents having left wills. Who inherited his assets?

I suggested that if John Looney only child of Robert/Jane Kneen bap 23 June 1750 wasn't the John Looney who died in 1783 he could have married Margaret Hutchen in 1777, and did leave a will (1805).

So yes, he would have been alive and well in 1783.

Sue