RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Cheshire => Topic started by: mikeyr62 on Sunday 03 April 11 09:47 BST (UK)
-
There is some confusion over this branch of my family.
It would appear that most of the children were born in and around Manchester but that they lived in Runcorn for many years and often said that was where they were from.
I am trying to find out what happened to three of the children.
My great great grandmother MATILDA STUART born c. 1831/2 married JAMES PEACOCK in a Catholic ceremony in 1849 and had one child ELLEN MAUD.
Her siblings were CHARLES c. 1822 born in Manchester,
JAMES c. 1825 born in Eccles, Lancashire
JOHN IGNATIUS c. 1826/7 born either in Manchester or Runcorn - became a Catholic Missionary/Priest
MARY c. 1833 born in Kearsley or Worsley, Lancashire
Their parents were ALEXANDER born in Aberdaron (probably Aberdeen), Scotland and SARAH ASHTON born in Armagh, Ireland
It would be nice to find out what became of CHARLES, JAMES and MARY. Did they marry and have children? When and where did they die?
Any help will be much appreciated.
Thanks.
Mike :D
-
Name: Mary Stuart
Gender: Female
Birth Date: abt 1835
Age: 17
Father's Name: Alexander Stuart
Spouse's Name: William Scholes
Spouse's Age: Full Age
Spouse's Father's Name: Samuel Scholes
Marriage Date: 27 Dec 1852
Marriage Place: Nantwich, Cheshire, England
could be your mary?
-
if it is id fancy this to be one of the children from that marriage.
Name: James Scholes
Year of Registration: 1854
Quarter of Registration: Oct-Nov-Dec
District: Nantwich
County: Cheshire
Volume: 8a
Page: 255 .
-
Name: Mary Stuart
Gender: Female
Birth Date: abt 1835
Age: 17
Father's Name: Alexander Stuart
Spouse's Name: William Scholes
Spouse's Age: Full Age
Spouse's Father's Name: Samuel Scholes
Marriage Date: 27 Dec 1852
Marriage Place: Nantwich, Cheshire, England
could be your mary?
This is brilliant - thank you.
Can I ask where you found this info from, please? I've been looking for ages and been unable to find anything.
Again, thanks.
Mike :D
-
if it is id fancy this to be one of the children from that marriage.
Name: James Scholes
Year of Registration: 1854
Quarter of Registration: Oct-Nov-Dec
District: Nantwich
County: Cheshire
Volume: 8a
Page: 255 .
I think it is quite likely.
Thanks.
Mike :)
-
records on ancestry mate.
if your not a member ill have a look around for some more details for you tomorrow.
-
records on ancestry mate.
if your not a member ill have a look around for some more details for you tomorrow.
Thank you.
Mike :)
-
In the 1841 Census Alexander Stuart's occupation is 'Chemist', High Street, but in 1851 it is 'Laborer' Wellington Street. In the 1861 Census Sarah Stuart, Wellington Street, is a 'Soap Works Foreman's Widow'.
Stan
-
Name: Mary Stuart
Gender: Female
Birth Date: abt 1835
Age: 17
Father's Name: Alexander Stuart
Spouse's Name: William Scholes
Spouse's Age: Full Age
Spouse's Father's Name: Samuel Scholes
Marriage Date: 27 Dec 1852
Marriage Place: Nantwich, Cheshire, England
could be your mary?
According to the 1861 Census this Mary Stuart was born in Nantwich
Stan
-
1851 Census Runcorn
Mary Stuart 18 b Bartley Lancashire, daughter of Alexander & Sarah Stuart
Mary Stuart bapt 17 Mar 1836, Nantwich, Cheshire parents Alexander & Sarah Stuart
the second lady is the one who married in 1852, can it be the same person on the census return in 1851? i cannot find a mary stuart born in nantwich on the 1851 census.
likewise i cannot find a birth for a mary stuart with these parents in 1833.
sorry if im raising more questions than im answering here.
-
1851 Census Runcorn
Mary Stuart 18 b Bartley Lancashire, daughter of Alexander & Sarah Stuart
Mary Stuart bapt 17 Mar 1836, Nantwich, Cheshire parents Alexander & Sarah Stuart
the second lady is the one who married in 1852, can it be the same person on the census return in 1851? i cannot find a mary stuart born in nantwich on the 1851 census.
likewise i cannot find a birth for a mary stuart with these parents in 1833.
sorry if im raising more questions than im answering here.
It always seems to be the way - one question is answered but another one hundred arise.
I think that these two Mary Stuarts are one and the same - after all, how many Mary Stuarts could there have been with a father called Alexander and a mother called SArah?
Mike ???
-
In the 1841 Census Alexander Stuart's occupation is 'Chemist', High Street, but in 1851 it is 'Laborer' Wellington Street. In the 1861 Census Sarah Stuart, Wellington Street, is a 'Soap Works Foreman's Widow'.
Stan
I did wonder about the distinct change of profession but how many Alexander Stuarts married to a SArah could there have been in Runcorn at that time?
Mike ???
-
if we assume that marriage is correct, this is william and the same 3 children on the 1871 census, though he seems to have remarried to an ellen
William Scholes 40
Ellen Scholes 38
James Scholes 16
William Scholes 14
Harry Scholes 11
Alice Scholes 9
Ada Scholes 1
at the moment i cannot find a death for mary or a remarriage to ellen.
more questions.......................
-
there is also this mary scholes married to a william scholes , im totally confused now to be honest ??? ???
1871 Census Ashton under Lyne
William Scholes 40
Mary Scholes 39 b Dukinfield Cheshire
Mary Scholes 18
Franck Scholes 16
Hannah Scholes 14
Robert Scholes 7
John Scholes 2
-
1871
William Scholes 40
Ellen Scholes 38
James Scholes 16
William Scholes 14
Harry Scholes 11
Alice Scholes 9
Ada Scholes 1
1861 mis transcribed.
William Scheler 30
Mary Scheler 25
James Scheler 7
William Scheler 4
Harry Scheler 2
there is a potential wedding for a william scholes to a ellen williamson shawcroft in cheshire in 1865. as is the way with ancestary it doent specify the spouse in this year.
im not sure if any of this helps to be honest. if one of the sites more savvy members can get to the bottom of it i would be interested to know!
-
1871
William Scholes 40
Ellen Scholes 38
James Scholes 16
William Scholes 14
Harry Scholes 11
Alice Scholes 9
Ada Scholes 1
1861 mis transcribed.
William Scheler 30
Mary Scheler 25
James Scheler 7
William Scheler 4
Harry Scheler 2
there is a potential wedding for a william scholes to a ellen williamson shawcroft in cheshire in 1865. as is the way with ancestary it doent specify the spouse in this year.
im not sure if any of this helps to be honest. if one of the sites more savvy members can get to the bottom of it i would be interested to know!
Thanks. This all totally confuses me.
It seems thar when one question is answered another thousand are raised.
And what became of James and Charles?
Mike ???
-
if that is your mary, then sadly she seems to have died at some point between those census or they divorced.
the kids she had should be easily traceable to 1911 via the census.
ill have a look for the other two, see if i can confuse us anymore!
-
to be honest with such common names without having access to the physical record i dont know how you can be sure of anything. in 1861 charles is still with his family
Charles Stuart age 29 b Manchester, living in Runcorn
Alexander Stuart 60
Sarah Stuart 59
Charles Stuart 29
Mary Stuart 18
Ann Boyer 67
Isabella Carodyce 38
Catharine Carodyce 14
Mary I Carodyce 12
Isabella L Carodyce 10
Elizabeth E Carodyce 7
John Nicholl 31
Wellington Cook 35
by 1871 his mother is living alone so he has presumably married.
-
this could be your charles in 1861, ticks a few boxes. as they have no children you would summise they were recently married but as of yet i havent found a record of the marriage ???
In Pancras RD, London
Charles Stuart 38 b Runcorn
Susan Stuart 38
-
to be honest with such common names without having access to the physical record i dont know how you can be sure of anything. in 1861 charles is still with his family
Charles Stuart age 29 b Manchester, living in Runcorn
Alexander Stuart 60
Sarah Stuart 59
Charles Stuart 29
Mary Stuart 18
Ann Boyer 67
Isabella Carodyce 38
Catharine Carodyce 14
Mary I Carodyce 12
Isabella L Carodyce 10
Elizabeth E Carodyce 7
John Nicholl 31
Wellington Cook 35
by 1871 his mother is living alone so he has presumably married.
This information is 1851 HO107; Piece: 2164; Folio: 463; Page: 9
The Stuarts are a separate household from the Carodyce family et al.
They have just been transcribed together in the index.
heywood
-
Paul and Mike,
Mary 'Stuart' of Nantwich is a different person
1851 HO107; Piece: 2169; Folio: 569; Page: 12
has the family transcribed as 'Tewart'.
Mary is 16 yrs which would fit with her marriage in 1852
best wishes
heywood
-
Paul's find for Charles and Susan fits
1861 RG9; Piece: 107; Folio: 115; Page: 58
Charles is a carpenter which fits with his occupation earlier
There is a death which also fits
Free BMD
Mar 1868 Pancras vol 1b pg 106
Charles Stuart 45 yrs
-
Paul and Mike,
Mary 'Stuart' of Nantwich is a different person
1851 HO107; Piece: 2169; Folio: 569; Page: 12
has the family transcribed as 'Tewart'.
Mary is 16 yrs which would fit with her marriage in 1852
best wishes
heywood
good work.
back to the drawing board.
-
apologies to the copyright editor if i have been copying material over i shouldnt have.
-
Paul's find for Charles and Susan fits
1861 RG9; Piece: 107; Folio: 115; Page: 58
Charles is a carpenter which fits with his occupation earlier
There is a death which also fits
Free BMD
Mar 1868 Pancras vol 1b pg 106
Charles Stuart 45 yrs
1871 susan is still living in st pancras now on her own (mis transcribed as stewart i believe) as a laundress so we can summise that charles had no heirs so thats one avenue closed.
-
back to mary, ignoring the mis transcribed one from 1836, i can only find one possible mary stuart on the census. in 1861 the lady in question is giving her place of birth as ashton under lyne, lancashire, there are no mary stuarts i can see giving this as a place of birth in 1851.
by 1861 this mary is lodging in ashton and by 1871 is living alone in ashton as a cotton winder. on the 1881 census there is no mary stuart matching this description. there is a mary baines, giving the same birth place and year and the same job now listed as a widow. there is no mary baines on the 1871 census with these details.
currently cannot find a marriage for a mary stuart to a baines bewteen 1871-1881.
could be the correct mary?
-
to be honest with such common names without having access to the physical record i dont know how you can be sure of anything. in 1861 charles is still with his family
Charles Stuart age 29 b Manchester, living in Runcorn
Alexander Stuart 60
Sarah Stuart 59
Charles Stuart 29
Mary Stuart 18
Ann Boyer 67
Isabella Carodyce 38
Catharine Carodyce 14
Mary I Carodyce 12
Isabella L Carodyce 10
Elizabeth E Carodyce 7
John Nicholl 31
Wellington Cook 35
by 1871 his mother is living alone so he has presumably married.
This is fascinating - thank you very much.
But, again, it raises a number of questions, namely, who are these people:
Mary Stuart 18 and how does she fit in? Charles' sister would have been about 26 in 1861 ???
Ann Boyer 67
Isabella Carodyce 38
Catharine Carodyce 14
Mary I Carodyce 12
Isabella L Carodyce 10
Elizabeth E Carodyce 7
John Nicholl 31
Wellington Cook 35
Mike ???
-
back to mary, ignoring the mis transcribed one from 1836, i can only find one possible mary stuart on the census. in 1861 the lady in question is giving her place of birth as ashton under lyne, lancashire, there are no mary stuarts i can see giving this as a place of birth in 1851.
by 1861 this mary is lodging in ashton and by 1871 is living alone in ashton as a cotton winder. on the 1881 census there is no mary stuart matching this description. there is a mary baines, giving the same birth place and year and the same job now listed as a widow. there is no mary baines on the 1871 census with these details.
currently cannot find a marriage for a mary stuart to a baines bewteen 1871-1881.
could be the correct mary?
This is so confusing ???
My family both fascinate and infuriate me in equal measures.
As one question is answered another hundred get asked.
Thank you so much for the help in trying to unravel this for me.
Mike ;D
-
Hello Mike,
the only thing I can think of is if there are surviving Catholic parish records for Runcorn.
It doesn't look too hopeful re the years on heere:
https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Runcorn,_Cheshire
As Paul said, it is quite a popular surname and is open to variations.
Going back to Alexander's occupation, I suppose he could have worked in some capacity as a chemist in a soap works which later became more of a labouring job but you would also have thought that the family would have needed some kind of money for a son to enter the Benedictines at that time. Perhaps not though. ??? Have you looked for a will?
I can't see John around Berkshire Somerset and am now wondering if by any chance he is James - don't think so though! (not much help really!)
best wishes
heywood
-
Hello Mike,
the only thing I can think of is if there are surviving Catholic parish records for Runcorn.
It doesn't look too hopeful re the years on heere:
https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Runcorn,_Cheshire
As Paul said, it is quite a popular surname and is open to variations.
Going back to Alexander's occupation, I suppose he could have worked in some capacity as a chemist in a soap works which later became more of a labouring job but you would also have thought that the family would have needed some kind of money for a son to enter the Benedictines at that time. Perhaps not though. ??? Have you looked for a will?
I can't see John around Berkshire and am now wondering if by any chance he is James - don't think so though! (not much help really!)
best wishes
heywood
Sorry am totally confused by all this.
John isn't James (we know where they both were in 1841 - John wasaway at school,James was in Runcorn.)
John died in Chipping Sodbury in 1905 - he is on the census for 1901 and 1891; at other times he may have been in Mauritius.
A will for whom??
Thanks.
MIke ??? ???
-
This is fascinating - thank you very much.
But, again, it raises a number of questions, namely, who are these people:
Mary Stuart 18 and how does she fit in? Charles' sister would have been about 26 in 1861 ???
Ann Boyer 67
Isabella Carodyce 38
Catharine Carodyce 14
Mary I Carodyce 12
Isabella L Carodyce 10
Elizabeth E Carodyce 7
John Nicholl 31
Wellington Cook 35
Mike ???
hi mike, couple of mistakes on my part in posting, this is the 1851 census so marys age is correct. the carodyce family lived next door at number 31, they have been placed on the record with the stuarts by mistake, they are no relation.
-
Hello Mike,
the only thing I can think of is if there are surviving Catholic parish records for Runcorn.
It doesn't look too hopeful re the years on heere:
https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Runcorn,_Cheshire
As Paul said, it is quite a popular surname and is open to variations.
Going back to Alexander's occupation, I suppose he could have worked in some capacity as a chemist in a soap works which later became more of a labouring job but you would also have thought that the family would have needed some kind of money for a son to enter the Benedictines at that time. Perhaps not though. ??? Have you looked for a will?
I can't see John around Berkshire and am now wondering if by any chance he is James - don't think so though! (not much help really!)
best wishes
heywood
Sorry am totally confused by all this.
John isn't James (we know where they both were in 1841 - John wasaway at school,James was in Runcorn.)
John died in Chipping Sodbury in 1905 - he is on the census for 1901 and 1891; at other times he may have been in Mauritius.
A will for whom??
Thanks.
MIke ??? ???
i think what he means is that at no point is john ignatious with the family on the census, i couldnt find him in cheshire either. if you are aware of his movements then thats one less thing to think about.
-
Hello Mike,
the only thing I can think of is if there are surviving Catholic parish records for Runcorn.
It doesn't look too hopeful re the years on heere:
https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Runcorn,_Cheshire
As Paul said, it is quite a popular surname and is open to variations.
Going back to Alexander's occupation, I suppose he could have worked in some capacity as a chemist in a soap works which later became more of a labouring job but you would also have thought that the family would have needed some kind of money for a son to enter the Benedictines at that time. Perhaps not though. ??? Have you looked for a will?
I can't see John around Berkshire and am now wondering if by any chance he is James - don't think so though! (not much help really!)
best wishes
heywood
Sorry am totally confused by all this.
John isn't James (we know where they both were in 1841 - John wasaway at school,James was in Runcorn.)
John died in Chipping Sodbury in 1905 - he is on the census for 1901 and 1891; at other times he may have been in Mauritius.
A will for whom??
Thanks.
MIke ??? ???
i think what he means is that at no point is john ignatious with the family on the census, i couldnt find him in cheshire either. if you are aware of his movements then thats one less thing to think about.
John was away at a Catholic Abbey training to be a monk then a priest from the age of about 12 onwards. He then spent time in Liverpool, Stratford upon Avon, Chipping Sodbury, Morpeth and Maritius at various times from 1851 onwards. Sometimes his birth is listed as Runcorn, sometimes as Manchester. Sometimes he names himself solely as Ignatius Stuart.
Totally confusing in my opinion ??? ???
-
back to mary, ignoring the mis transcribed one from 1836, i can only find one possible mary stuart on the census. in 1861 the lady in question is giving her place of birth as ashton under lyne, lancashire, there are no mary stuarts i can see giving this as a place of birth in 1851.
by 1861 this mary is lodging in ashton and by 1871 is living alone in ashton as a cotton winder. on the 1881 census there is no mary stuart matching this description. there is a mary baines, giving the same birth place and year and the same job now listed as a widow. there is no mary baines on the 1871 census with these details.
currently cannot find a marriage for a mary stuart to a baines bewteen 1871-1881.
could be the correct mary?
This is so confusing ???
My family both fascinate and infuriate me in equal measures.
As one question is answered another hundred get asked.
Thank you so much for the help in trying to unravel this for me.
Mike ;D
no problem at all, ive had plenty of help on here so its only fair to try and return the favour.
as it stands we know what became of charles, married and lived in london, died without having children.
john ignatious you are aware of.
mary we potentially have her tracked but needs more evidence, have you tried the runcorn link that was posted?
james, im having real trouble with being such a common name, he can be the project for tomorrow.
-
i need to work on the use of the quote function as well ???
-
Oh dear all this confusion ::) ;) :o
re John Ignatius and James. I had looked further for John in 1841 in Downside Abbey, Somerset (I wrote Berkshire earlier by mistake- thinking of Douai Abbey, Berkshire). He may well have been in Douai France perhaps?
That was why I then went back on everything I had said previously (other thread) and wondered if he was James. However I doubt that very much.
Hope that is ok. :)
Paul, when you want to quote, make sure you begin your typing after the last part of the message - it will say '/quote' in square brackets
-
Oh dear all this confusion ::) ;) :o
re John Ignatius and James. I had looked further for John in 1841 in Downside Abbey, Somerset (I wrote Berkshire earlier by mistake- thinking of Douai Abbey, Berkshire). He may well have been in Douai France perhaps?
That was why I then went back on everything I had said previously (other thread) and wondered if he was James. However I doubt that very much.
Hope that is ok. :)
Paul, when you want to quote, make sure you begin your typing after the last part of the message - it will say '/quote' in square brackets
From what I can gather John Ignatius was at Douai Abbey in Berkshire for his training from the age of about 12 onwards - so that would be about 1839 meaning that he would not have been in Runcorn for the 1841 census. I also know that many people did not fill in the 1841 census as it was a new thing (also maybe religious places were a little more secretive!? and didn't want to say who was there!)
I'm still confused about Mary - is "my" Mary the one that married Scholes or not - I don't get it ???
James is a reasonably common name as is Stuart but I'd still like to find out about him.
Mike ???
-
back to mary, ignoring the mis transcribed one from 1836, i can only find one possible mary stuart on the census. in 1861 the lady in question is giving her place of birth as ashton under lyne, lancashire, there are no mary stuarts i can see giving this as a place of birth in 1851.
by 1861 this mary is lodging in ashton and by 1871 is living alone in ashton as a cotton winder. on the 1881 census there is no mary stuart matching this description. there is a mary baines, giving the same birth place and year and the same job now listed as a widow. there is no mary baines on the 1871 census with these details.
currently cannot find a marriage for a mary stuart to a baines bewteen 1871-1881.
could be the correct mary?
This is so confusing ???
My family both fascinate and infuriate me in equal measures.
As one question is answered another hundred get asked.
Thank you so much for the help in trying to unravel this for me.
Mike ;D
no problem at all, ive had plenty of help on here so its only fair to try and return the favour.
as it stands we know what became of charles, married and lived in london, died without having children.
john ignatious you are aware of.
mary we potentially have her tracked but needs more evidence, have you tried the runcorn link that was posted?
james, im having real trouble with being such a common name, he can be the project for tomorrow.
The Mary issue confuses me completely - Stuart/Scholes/Baines ??? I don't know! Runcorn or Manchester or Worsley or Kearsley ??? Again, I don't know!
Your help is invaluable - thank you so much.
Mike :)
-
PS Just to add confusion to an already chaotic situation:
I have just found out that Alexander and Sarah married in 1811 at Manchester Cathedral (presumably it was still not possible to openly marry in Catholic ceremonies at that time!?)
Yet they didn't have any children until Charles was born c. 1822 - I wonder why? I've tried tracing this on familysearch to see if I can find any children who were born and subsequently died between 1811 and 1822 but I'm not having much luck at the moment.
I can't believe that they could have no children for 11 years and then start to reproduce every 2 - 3 years for the next 12 years.
Any ideas? Help?
Thanks.
Mike ???
-
Checking on familysearch.org makes me question the Mary Stuart found that was married in Nantwich as I've found the following which suggests that there was possibly, another Mary born with parents called Alexander and Sarah in 1836 and that she had a sister called Emma:
1-20 of 17281 results
#
Emma Stuart
England, Cheshire Parish Registers, 1538-2000
birth:
christening: 03 Jul 1834 — Nantwich, Cheshire, England
baptism:
death:
burial:
residence:
parents: Alexander Stuart, Sarah
spouse:
child:
marriage:
#
Emma Stuart
England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975
birth:
christening: 03 Jul 1834 — Nantwich, Cheshire, , England
baptism:
death:
burial:
residence:
parents: Alexander Stuart, Sarah
spouse:
child:
marriage:
#
Mary Stuart
England, Cheshire Parish Registers, 1538-2000
birth:
christening: 17 Mar 1836 — Nantwich, Cheshire, England
Interestingly I can find no birth/christening records on familysearch for Charles, James, John Ignatius, Matilda or Mary
Help please......
Thanks.
Mike ???
-
Hi Mike,
I know it got a bit confusing here but we had dismissed Mary from Nantwich already. There was another Alexander and Sarah (in 1841 as Tewart if I recall).
I don't think there are Catholic records from that period on Family Search and one would assume that the children would be baptised Catholic.
I know that Manchester family History Society are indexing Catholic records
http://mlfhs.org.uk/index.php and they have online index here http://www.mlfhs.org.uk/data/catholic_search.php
but I can't see anything there.
As Mary states Kearsley, you might have to search around for the Catholic church there from that time.
regards
heywood
-
Hi Mike,
I know it got a bit confusing here but we had dismissed Mary from Nantwich already. There was another Alexander and Sarah (in 1841 as Tewart if I recall).
I don't think there are Catholic records from that period on Family Search and one would assume that the children would be baptised Catholic.
I know that Manchester family History Society are indexing Catholic records
http://mlfhs.org.uk/index.php and they have online index here http://www.mlfhs.org.uk/data/catholic_search.php
but I can't see anything there.
As Mary states Kearsley, you might have to search around for the Catholic church there from that time.
regards
heywood
Thanks for this I tried the online Catholic records just putting the family name STUART in and using a Soundex option and came up with nothing.
I am so totally confused
Thanks for your help.
Mike ???
-
did you see the other mary i posted details about? she gave her place of birth as ashton under lyne? there are only so many mary stuarts giving the place of birth as lancashire in that year on the 1851 census so she has to be one of them, unless of course she has again been mis transcribed.
-
did you see the other mary i posted details about? she gave her place of birth as ashton under lyne? there are only so many mary stuarts giving the place of birth as lancashire in that year on the 1851 census so she has to be one of them, unless of course she has again been mis transcribed.
Hi,
Thanks - yes I saw this.
I think that Ashton under Lyne is so way out in terms of where she was born/lived to be seriously considered - or am i wrong on that one?
I think that mistranscription is the most likely option - STUART/STEWART/TUART/TEWART/STURT etc
But I'm lost as to where to go with this one.
Mike ???
-
Not everything is online- especially Catholic records.
You may never find their baptism details, or you may have to search the records elsewhere.
Catholic records for Salford Diocese are held at Lancashire - here is some information
http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/web/?siteid=4528&pageid=30846&e=e
-
Good news by the way re the marriage - just seen it on FS. :)
-
Not everything is online- especially Catholic records.
You may never find their baptism details, or you may have to search the records elsewhere.
Catholic records for Salford Diocese are held at Lancashire - here is some information
http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/web/?siteid=4528&pageid=30846&e=e
Thanks :D
I am slowly but surely realising that.
Mike :(
-
Good news by the way re the marriage - just seen it on FS. :)
Yes, I found it a few days ago.
But again, it raises questions - why did Alexander and Sarah wait 11 years before having their first child?
I'm guessing that they must have had children before Charles but I can't find any details.
Mike ???
-
It's back to the same thing- if the children were baptised Catholic then the records aren't online.
-
It's back to the same thing- if the children were baptised Catholic then the records aren't online.
I guess so although I have found one or two Catholic baptisms over time.
I guess it's a case of just ploughing on with what there is!?
Thanks again, for your help.
Mike ???