Interesting....I can't find her on any previous census.
Have to get off to bed now, but may have another look tomorrow, if nobody else has found her for you.
Good point. The way the d is linked to to m (or h) and the rest a bit squiggly This is where I tell you I also have Woodhams in my line and also Woodman-Woodhams Either way... I can't see an obvious link to either my Woodmans or Woodhams with this lady. I think this one is for the back burner but she did need eliminating from my immediate research. Thanks.
Edit:
Forgot to mention I checked for her 1881 under Woodham and couldn't find her either!
Comment