You're standing there, or maybe you're just scrolling, and someone hits you with it. "As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives." Or maybe they use the more blunt version: I met a man on the London Bridge riddle. It feels like a math problem. Your brain starts multiplying seven by seven by seven. Stop. You're already doing too much work, and that's exactly what the riddle wants.
Wordplay is a funny thing. It tricks the logical part of your brain into sprinting down a dead-end alley while the actual answer is just standing there behind you, waving. This specific riddle is a classic example of "distraction through detail." It’s ancient, honestly. People have been scratching their heads over variations of this since at least the 18th century, and the "London Bridge" twist is just one of many ways we try to stump our friends.
The Core Logic of the London Bridge Riddle
The most common version of this setup involves a narrator heading toward a destination. Let's look at the classic phrasing: "As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives; every wife had seven sacks, every sack had seven cats, every cat had seven kits." The question is always: "How many were going to St. Ives?"
The answer is one.
Just the narrator.
Think about it. If I'm walking toward the bridge and I meet a man, that man is going the opposite direction. He’s leaving. He’s not headed where I’m headed. All those wives, sacks, cats, and kittens? They’re following him away from the destination. It’s a linguistic sleight of hand. We get so caught up in the exponential math of $7^4$ that we forget the very first verb in the sentence.
💡 You might also like: Why Will Smith Clothes Fresh Prince Still Define Streetwear Decades Later
Sometimes, people try to get cheeky. They’ll argue that maybe the man was walking backward, or maybe the narrator passed him while they were both going the same way. But in the world of traditional riddles, "met" almost always implies a head-on encounter.
Why our brains love to fail at this
Neuroscience actually has a bit to say about why we fail. Our brains are wired for pattern recognition. When we hear a sequence of numbers—seven wives, seven sacks, seven cats—our "System 2" thinking (the slow, analytical part) kicks in. We want to solve the puzzle. We want to be the smart person who knows that $7 \times 7 \times 7 \times 7 = 2401$.
By engaging the mathematical centers of the brain, the riddle effectively shuts down the linguistic center that should be analyzing the direction of travel. It’s a cognitive overload.
History and the St. Ives Connection
While people often search for the "London Bridge" version today, the riddle is most famous as the "As I was going to St. Ives" nursery rhyme. It first appeared in a manuscript around 1730, but it might be even older. There’s actually an Egyptian mathematical puzzle in the Rhind Papyrus from 1650 BC that uses a similar structure of sevens.
Imagine that. People have been falling for this same trick for over 3,500 years.
The London Bridge variation likely popped up because the bridge is such a central landmark in English folklore. "London Bridge is Falling Down" is ingrained in our psyche, so it’s natural to slot it into other word puzzles. However, the logic remains identical regardless of the location. Whether it’s a bridge in London or a road to a Cornish seaside town, the trick is the "meeting."
The Mathematical Trap
If you actually did want to count everyone—let’s say the question was "How many people and animals were in the group I met?"—the numbers get big fast.
- 1 Man
- 7 Wives
- 49 Sacks
- 343 Cats
- 2,401 Kits
Total? 2,801. But again, that's not the answer to the riddle. It's just a bunch of math you did for no reason.
Variations That Might Mess You Up
Not every version of the I met a man on the London Bridge riddle is that straightforward. Some people like to play with the phrasing to make the answer "none" or "at least one."
If the narrator says, "I met a man on London Bridge... how many were on the bridge?" the answer changes. Then you’re counting the narrator, the man, the wives, and the cats. Context is everything.
Then you have the "trick within a trick." Some tellings suggest the narrator isn't a person, or that the "man" is actually a statue. But usually, if you’re at a bar or a family dinner and someone asks this, they are looking for the "only one" answer. It’s the ultimate "gotcha" moment.
Common Misconceptions
- The "Group" Theory: Some people think the answer is 2,802 because they include the narrator in the big math total. This is wrong because the narrator is going one way and the group is going the other.
- The "Zero" Theory: Some argue that if you "meet" someone on a bridge, you might both be standing still, so nobody is "going" anywhere. This is overthinking it to a point of misery.
- The "Wives" Problem: In some older versions, the man isn't there at all, and it's just the wives. Doesn't change the math.
How to Win Every Riddle Argument
If you want to be the person who actually explains why the answer is what it is, you have to focus on the grammar. English is a tricky language. The word "met" is the pivot point.
I once saw a heated debate on a forum where someone insisted the answer was "nine" because the narrator was walking with a dog and the man had a parrot. That's just making stuff up. Stick to the text. In the classic I met a man on the London Bridge riddle, the text is your only map.
Why this riddle still goes viral
You’ve probably seen it on Facebook or TikTok. A colorful background with simple text, maybe an emoji of a bridge. "99% of people fail this!" It’s engagement bait, but it works because it touches on our desire to be right. We see the numbers, we think we're clever, we type "2801" in the comments, and then someone else calls us an idiot.
It’s the cycle of the internet.
But there’s a charm to it. It’s a piece of oral tradition that has survived the transition from 18th-century paper to 21st-century screens. It proves that human psychology hasn't changed much. We still get distracted by shiny objects—or in this case, lots of kittens.
Actionable Tips for Solving Word Riddles
To avoid getting stumped by the next viral puzzle, follow these steps:
- Ignore the numbers. If a riddle starts throwing lots of digits at you immediately, they are almost certainly a "red herring."
- Identify the verbs. "Going," "coming," "met," "passed." These tell you the direction of the story.
- Check the question. Read the very last sentence first. Often, the question has nothing to do with the elaborate story told in the first three sentences.
- Listen for "polysemy." That's a fancy word for words with multiple meanings. "Met" is the big one here.
When you encounter the I met a man on the London Bridge riddle next, just smile. Let the other person finish their long list of cats and sacks. Wait for the pause. Then, simply say "One." When they look confused, explain the direction of travel. You'll look like a genius, or at the very least, someone who actually pays attention to the details that matter.
The real value of these riddles isn't the answer itself. It’s the reminder to slow down. We live in a world of "fast thinking," where we react to headlines and snippets without processing the full context. Riddles like this are a micro-dose of critical thinking. They force us to realize that our first instinct—the "math instinct"—is often wrong because we didn't listen to the premise.
Next time you're out, try telling a variation of this. See how many people start using their phone calculators. It’s a fascinating social experiment. You’ll see the exact moment their brain switches from "listening to a story" to "solving a problem." And that, honestly, is the real trick.
Understand that the "London Bridge" version is just a modern skin on a very old bone. The bone is the logic. The skin is the setting. Don't let the setting distract you from the logic. Stay focused on the narrator's journey, not the crowd they pass along the way.