I wonder if anyone would have much more success than me and three relatives, plus a couple of professional genealogists, who have studied this brick wall
James Edgecock Field (Edgecock I suspect may have been the mother's maiden name)
My notes, thus far are below:
The birth identity of James Field cannot be established in circa 1791 (the age taken off the Census documents), and thus parentage seems obscure to us.. There were no births of a James Field in Canterbury during c. 1791, aside from one who died as an infant (son of John and Cecilia Field baptised 23 November 1790 - this poor couple lost no less than five children to infant mortality).
The name Hedgecock or Edgecock is associated with this James (two of his sons had second names Edgecock). A James Hatchcock was baptised on 11 November 1792 being the son of William and Hannah Hatchcock (assumably spelt correctly, but may well be Hedgecock or Edgecock - Could actually be Hitchcock with their predominance in Canterbury and surrounds). By all accounts he was an only child. The theory goes that James' father died and his mother, Hannah, remarried a Field and James was adopted and took on the name Field. Its a long shot! No marriages can be found between a Hannah (with variants) and a James Hatchcock/Edgecock in St.Mary Northgate. Taking the search a little wider, geographically, but within Canterbury there are 16 marriage records for Hannah to James. A James Badcock married Hannah Newman Jun/Jul 1783 at St. Mildred, Canterbury. This would be stretching it a touch. Broadening this yet further, there are 87 marriages of Hannah in Kent leading up to 1791 (birth of James). The only, and this is coincidental, marriage is that of a James Hedgecock married a Hannah Brugar on 15 May 1787 (OR 1788 - perhaps a transcription difference) at Egeton, Kent England. James is not William!
A search of all Williams married to Hannahs in Kent, gives 1551 results. The only similar surname to Hatchcock found was that of Hitchcock who married Hannah Lovell, St. James, Dover on 17 July 1787 - the date fits. Now to the hypothesis that this William died after James was born. Firstly, no Hatchcocks died in Kent that we can find. Nor can we find Edgecock deaths. There are plenty of Hedgecock deaths. Of the Williams likely there is one who died in Lydd, Kent in 1797 (no age given - and no apparent surviving family by 1841 Census) and one who died in 1803 in Lyminge, Kent aged 85 (unlikely - and no surviving family c. 1841), an one who died in 1806 in Cranbrooke (aged not given). We also note a William Hitchcock died in 1832 in Dover. If this is the same person spelled as Hatchcock then it dispels the theory. Testing Census appearances for evidence of Hannah in Dover establishes that the Dover Hitchcock never remarried.
Perhaps we might focus on deaths of males Hedgecock/Edgecock/Hitchcock in the Canterbury District. John Hedgecock died April 1804, buried 15 April 1804 at Challock, Charing, Canterbury. No age given. Parents William and Ellenor.
There was a marriage of James Field to Mary Indell on 5 March 1811 which should not be ignored at this point. This James would have been born at the same time as 'our' James. No parent/father names/trades are mentioned. No trace can be found of Mary Indell with name variants in England.
The alternate is that James Field was actually born away from Canterbury, yet Census Documents suggest otherwise - 1851 - Born Kent, Canterbury; 1861 - Born Canterbury Kent; 1871 - Kent, Canterbury. A mere 471 James were born and 22 were baptised in Canterbury between 1788-1792! Needle in a haystack. Of those there are no Edgecocks. There is a Hatchcock referred to above. However, there is no tangible evidence to show how Hatchcock came to be known as Field.
Its a total mystery!
