Hi
Just come back to this one, as I gather that the Whitechapel birth cert did not have a father called Samuel.
I would not be hasty in dismissing that though. It appears to be the only birth at the right time for a William Duffield, and he is consistant wih his age.
I think we are in danger of putting too much emphasis on the "Samuel" name from the marriage cert. This is so easy to do, as it is the first piece on info that you found, and so now are looking for everything else to tie in with that.
BUT - if that info was wrong, then nothing will tie in!
So easy to do - happens with censuses too, I've done it myself. You find Joe Bloggs born in Little town in 1861, so you search for ever for him in 1871, rejecting the Joe Bloggs born in Big Town, saying "thats wrong, mine was born in Little town". If you broaden your outlook, eventually you find Joe in all the other censuses with Big Town as his birthplace, and accept that the only one that was wrong was the first one you found.
Now - it could be like that with William. Maybe the father on the marriage cert is wrong. Perhaps his father was something else, and either a) was known as Samuel so that is what William said or b) the registrar thought he said Samuel and wrote it down wrong c) the next wedding recorded had a father Samuel, and it got copied incorrectly d)William was illegitimate and just made up the name Samuel (very common).
OK - lets go back to the 1860 Whitechapel birth. Who was the father? Was he a shoemaker? Who was the mother?Can we find that William in 1861 and 1871? And when we do is there anything which either rules out, or rules in, whether or not he could be 'your' William?
BTW When your William marries, who are the witnesses? Are they Heralds, or could they be William's rellies?
Just some thoughts, but I definitely think the Whitechapel William birth needs pursuing till it can definitely be ruled out.
