Tony Pink (ajr.pink @t btinternet.com) of Teddington, Middlesex, writes: I am trying to trace the parents and beyond of my GGGG Grandparents: James Ginger who married Jane Timberlake on 12/10/1808 in Kings Langley. On the familysearch (IGI) website they are described as "of Kings Langley". James died on 17/02/1817 aged 31 and in the Herts Burial Index 1800-1851 CD, his abode was Doolittle, [Kings Langley] as was their son Joseph who died 17/1/1813. The abode given for their daughter Susannah who died in 1810 was Kings Langley. Children that seemed to have lived beyond 1850 were Mary Ann, James, Sarah and my direct line relative William who was born 14/01/1810: he died in March 1878. I have 1841 and 1851 census records for Jane Ginger.

Jane was a rag sorter and lived until 1858 and lived for most of her life as a widow in Batchworth (near Rickmansworth). She appears on the tithe map, so HALS told me. In the Burial Index, possible parents for Jane could (going by ages and location only) be a Richard (born 1755 in IGI) died 1/2/1837 and Jane (possibly nee Colley born 1757) and who died 17/11/1841 in Kings Langley: however I have no direct evidence only the usual hope factors !

Several of the descendants of James including William were connected with the paper industry. William's son Robert Ginger my GG Grandfather was involved with watercress growing/cutting. Eventually down the line Arthur Ginger son of Robert had a daughter Louisa Maud who married my Grandfather Roderick Lionel Pink in 1921 in Lambeth London.

Understanding sources is important and the first thing to say is that you are putting too much weight on what it says on familysearch (see the limitations of familysearch). The marriage entry is a submitted entry which in this case happens to correspond to the entry on the British Vital Records Index - so is almost certainly correct. The register entry will give additional information - the parish of residence of the couple, the names of witnesses, and whether there was a marriage licence (which can contain importance extra information if it survives).

The birth information on familysearch relating to James Ginger and Jane Timberlake is an invention to fit in with the way members described their ancestors when they did not have any relevant records.  The "of Kings Langley" means no more than that they were later at Kings Langley (in this case to be married). The birth dates, 22 years before the marriage may be no more than guesses, the legal age of marriage without parent permission was 21. Such artificial entries should be discarded as telling you nothing more than you already know from the marriage register.

If you go back to familysearch you will find two James Ginger who were born within a few miles of Kings Langley. One was baptised in Little Gaddesden in 1784. and the other baptised in 1787 at Great Gaddesden and Nettleden. You will need to research both to see which (if either) is most likely to be your ancestor. You may find it useful to look at The inheritance of Single Christian Names and Right Name, Wrong Body.

There are no obvious candidates for the baptism of Jane Timberlake. See Where is my ancestor's baptism before 1837 for possible reasons.

An additional comment - had your realised that Jane Ginger occupation as a rag sorter meant that she too was in the paper making industry! Other mill workers in the household may also have worked in the local paper mill.

and Doolittle, late 18th/early 19th century

If you can add to the information given above tell me.