Just mind boggling how fast this is going......<br><br>First, another tidbit of information. In the 1841 I find James Foord and Susan (Susan, not Sarah) living at the same address (North Lane, Westgate Without). James' age is close enough, but "Susan" is really off. It states 25 (let's keep in mind that the 1841 census takers did a lot of rounding off) which puts her birth year around 1816/17, the same as James'. However, the 1851 and 1861 census shows a considerable difference in James and Sarah's ages. Do you all agree that this is the same James? Would an "educated" guess be that Jame's first wife Susan (I can't find any death reference) died, he replaced her with Sarah but never married? I also think the logic is good that James and Sarah Gawler did not marry, thus their kids were named Foord Gawler. But, if this is the case, where is the logic for the surnames only being Foord in the 1851 and 1861 census? If they had stopped using the Gawler surname and reverted back to just Foord, why is William Albert registered as Gawler in 1863, and appearing in the 1871 census as Gawler. There is curiousity only, I want to have my accuracy as high as possible. Is it because when William went to live with the Gawlers in Teynham prior to 1871, they used his "legal" surname of Gawler, whereas for the sake of daily business (including census) the family had just used Foord prior to James' death in 1862 and Sarah's in 1866?<br>
Second, I can't find Sarah Gawler's parents, however, I can find in both 1861 and 1851 census Robert and Sarah Gawler's son Abraham with whom William lived with in the 1871 census as an uncle. This would mean that Abraham should have had a sister named Sarah (furthermore, she is named after her mother?) but she does not appear in the 1841 census (by 1851 she had married/or was living with James Foord). It is conceiveable that the 1841 census listing in Westgate Without that shows James and Susan is in fact James and Sarah, BUT, there is at minimum (based on later census and the IGI) eleven years difference between James and Sarah, not the same ages as appears in the 1841 census. And if we assume that Susan is really Sarah, would it be logical that they were not married then? And thus, my logic of James' first wife dying and his remarrying Sarah goes out the window??? <br>
Boy, my mind is tired....what do you guys think?<br>
(and casalguidi....thanks for the marriage info, no I did not have that yet!!!)<br>
Larry
