When Is It OK to Assume?

[Jeuel]

You need to make assumptions, but you also need to check them out.  I've often had to delete a number of people who turn out to be incorrect, however neatly they appeared to fit at the time.

Make notes on what you've found and why you are assuming what you assume, it will help you to reassess it all.

[Billyblue]

Deany
A printer once told me "Assume nothing, check everything" - I didn't heed his advice and it cost my firm heaps!

the same mantra holds good for FH research.
If you've checked it out thoroughly, then you can assume but always bear in mind that it could be wrong.

Dawn M

[Rena]

The question I would ask myself is why were the first wadge of kids born in Mickleham?

If I was making any assumption on the info you've set out, then I would assume that Sarah Ellis was the east-ender (usually marry on the bride's patch), and that would make me wonder why did they end up in Mickleham (which is south of Dorking)

Perhaps Richard was from that area - there's no Richard Deans baptised 1770/1780s in Mickleham as far as I can tell, but the IGI shows a Richard Dean baptised in Dorking 18 April 1773 - parents Henry and Mary Dean.  My eyes light up at this because the eldest child of Richard and Sarah's is a Henry.

Alternatively is there a good industrial, silk-weaving reason for Richard being in Mickelham?

Does born 1773 fit with other info you have?

JULIAN

I'm inclined to think this is Richard, especially if one sees the names of his brothers.  One being James and the other is William - although I suspect Richard's son James was probably named after Sarah's father.

Joseph Samuel born in London is the only child to have two names and I wonder if the couple named one of their sons in honour of maybe an employer or benefactor who gave Richard a step up in life  (which is what a couple of my ancestors did).  If that's so then there is a merchant in the Directory of London and Westminster, & Borough of Southwark.1794  with the name of Joseph Samuel, merchant.
http://www.londonancestor.com/kents/kents-s.htm

[deany70]

Thank you everyone for your feedback - its been very interesting to hear your responses.

I did wonder about the Mickleham births - then I was looking at my tree last night and Ive got a Sarah born 1805 listed on there too which Id forgotten about - she was born in Bethnal Green so I wonder if Ive got it wrong and the 3 in Surrey were children of a different Richard and Sarah

Sarah was born in 1783 so the Dorking Richard would be 10yrs older - not unusual I know and could explain why he might have died before 1841 although Im still not convinced he did as my Gx4 Grandfather Joseph was married in 1845 and there was a Richard Dean as his witness - since Ive not found a brother for Joseph with that name, it could only be his Father or his cousin. 

ARGH  its sooo hard (but gorgeous, lovely fun )

[Redroger]

Keep believing Deany, sooner or later (if you are like me much later ) a breakthrough will come then you will wonder what all the trouble was about.