Family Tradition Versus Family History

I have spent the past few days researching James Tucker, of Somerset England.
Family tradition has him as the son of Henry Tucker and Hannah Dudden, married to Ruth Pringle. He and Ruth and their family came to Canada, She died while at sea in 1849, and James settled in Grey county Ontario, The christening of James Tucker, son of Henry tucker and Hannah Dudden can be found in High Littleton, Somerset, England on 27 Jan 1805.

So what is the problem?

As I was researching James, I found that he married Ruth Priddle on 4 April 1813 in Martock, Somerset, England A bit of simple math shows that James would only be 8 years old at the time. Then there are the 1841 and 1851 censuses of James and Ruth and their family living at Tintinhull near Martock. In these censuses they are shown as born in 1791 or 1796. The 1791 date matches the 1813 marriage very nicely. And the 1851 census says that James was born in Cricket St Thomas, Somerset in 1791, not in High Littleton in 1805. And Ruth is still alive in the 1851 census, not dead at sea two years previously.

The family tradition is so strong that I considered that there were two different James Tuckers who married women named Ruth Priddle . Then I proceeded to try documenting both couples. There was no shortage of men named James Tucker born during 1790-1810 in Somerset. but women named Ruth Priddle were a different matter. The 1813 marriage was the only one I could find. I realize that
some records are missing so that "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

But other than the 1805 christening in High Littleton, all of the evidence I was finding was for the James Tucker and Ruth Priddle who were born in 1791. I found their christenings, their marriage, their 1841 and 1851 census records and Ruth's death in the Tintinhull area in 1852. Then I came across a well-documented family tree on Ancestry that added missing pieces. There was James Tucker, as a widower, living in Grey country, Ontario in the 1861 and 1871 Canada censuses. He is shown as aged 70 in 1861 and 80 in 1871. For me the clincher was that in the 1871 census he was living with his daughter Ruth and her family. And last of all I found death records for James. He died on 13 January 1876 in Artemesia, Grey, Ontario, Canada and I even found a FindAGrave memorial, The Canadian records all agree that he was born in 1791, not 1805.

So, with a sense of relief I was finally able to merge the James Tucker and Ruth Priddle born about 1805 into the records of James Tucker and Ruth Priddle born in 1791.

What about the generations of Tucker researchers who had this couple connected with the James Tucker who was the son of Henry Tucker and Hannah Dudden? I decided to leave the 1805 christening and the connection to Henry and Hannah as an additional set of parents. Otherwise, Ruth Priddle and her descendants would be considered as missing family members and would be added by other Tucker researchers.

Who died on a ship in 1849 and was buried at sea? I don't have an answer to that question, but it was nor Ruth Priddle Tucker.