TRIGG, Meesden, circa 1800
More recently, on checking the IGI, I found the following (note no Susannah) for Meesden, Herts. These TRIGGs are all children of Daniel and Lydia.... Note the Davids agree.
1. David TRIGG - Gender: M Christening: 10
2. John TRIGG - Gender: M Christening: 16 Aug 1801
3. Alice TRIGG - Gender: F Christening: 1 Apr 1804
4. Thos. TRIGG - Gender: M Christening: 18 Aug 1807
I am trying to find the birth parents of Susan TRIGG who is on the IGI as Susan TRIGG of Brent Pelham 1800, about whom I can find no other birth information so am conjecturing that this might be the Susannah TRIGG of Meesden, which is just next door to Brent Pelham. Susan TRIGG married a John BRADFORD in 1828/1829 and had had a baby, Thomas, in 1825.
I haven't had time to do any deep investigations - but at least I can clarify a few points - and you may find reading The Limitations of Familysearch useful. The IGI is an index of the religious ordinances of the Church of Latter Day Saints which also happens to be very useful to genealogists who have nothing to do with the Church.
If you look at the reference to Susan Trigg of Brent Pelham, 1800, you will find that it is a patron submission, This means that a member of the Church believed their ancestor was Susan Trigg. In order for the Church Ordinances to be carried out a place and date of birth was needed - so a guess was made that if she was married in Brent Pelham she was possibly born there about 25 years or so earlier. As a result, what is little better than a wild guess has been entered into the index - and you should treat such unreliable patron entries with the genealogical contempt they deserve.
The Church has also transcribed parish registers into the IGI and these are far more reliable. However they have the problems of all such indexes in that they invariably contain some errors - often because the writing was difficult. I don't know what the average error rate is, but I would not at all be surprised if as many as 5% of the entries have some kind of error - some of which will result in an entry being totally "lost". I suspect that the Susannah Trigg entry you noticed is in the IGI somewhere but that at least the leading capital letter of the surname has been misinterpreted (a common fault).
It is quite possible that Susannah and Susan Trigg are one and the same, and the fact that her illegitimate son and "her brother" were both called Thomas is supportive of the idea - but not very helpful, as Thomas is too common a name to be a strong clue.
If you can add to the information given above tell me.