Thomas RIMELL (aged about 44yrs) married Anne BANFORD (aged about 24yrs) in Cheshunt, Herts on February 8th 1767. The IGI also reports children to Thomas and Anne RIMELL in Edmonton in Middlesex (about 6 miles) as follows: James (1768), John (1769), Anne (1770), Thomas (1771) and William (1773) I think that it is reasonable to assume this was one family group.
The first part of this theory is that they subsequently moved to Hammersmith
Thomas (the elder), Anne (the elder), William and Thomas appear in Hammersmith in 1797 (source Hammersmith baptism records).
Thomas (the younger) was married to Maria and they had a son, James, in 1801. Thomas died in 1804 aged 32yrs which corresponds with IGI above (source is Hammersmith Parish Records). I note from the IGI that a Thomas RIMELL married Ann Maria GIBBS in December 1793 at St Bride Fleet Street, London.
William (the younger) was married to Mary and they had the following children: William (1797), James (1798 but died 1800), Richard (1800), James (1801), Thomas (1802), Mary (1804), Valentine (1806), Ann (1808), Charlotte (1810), Martha (1812) and Elizabeth (1815 but died 1818). I assume that William married Mary in about 1796 but dont know where.
There is a lot more RIMELL information in Hammersmith (and possibly Fulham) for the period from 1800 to 1860 and possibly later. The indexes for Hammersmith indicate that the earliest RIMELL mention is 1797.
From Hammersmith parish records Thomas (the elder) was born about 1723 and his wife Anne about 1743. Im not now convinced that his declared age of 90yrs at death is correct. He was not a widower when he married (if he came from Cheshunt per above) and I think it more likely that his age was 70yrs. I will recheck in case I misread the information.
The second part of this theory is that Hammersmith RIMELLs are related directly to Isleworth RIMELLs although I dont yet have the link. The family names (John, James, Richard, William and Anne) are VERY similar.
My speculation is that William (of Isleworth) was either the brother or father of Thomas (of Hammersmith). Either way, it gives me a new line to develop or prove wrong!