Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - paulchapman

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 7
1
Leicestershire / Re: HURST in Oadby, Wigston
« on: Monday 25 April 11 11:25 BST (UK)  »
i wonder could anybody do a look up for me on the 1911 census?

i am aware that edith charlotte maud hurst married in leicester in 1907. as is the way with ancestry i am not sure who she married, its either arthur food or john henry wood.

a return for an edith charlotte maud food/wood born in 1884 would help me out.

thanks

2
Cheshire / Re: STUART FAMILY - Runcorn (?)
« on: Friday 08 April 11 11:39 BST (UK)  »
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.

3
Cheshire / Re: STUART FAMILY - Runcorn (?)
« on: Tuesday 05 April 11 20:57 BST (UK)  »
i need to work on the use of the quote function as well  ???

4
Cheshire / Re: STUART FAMILY - Runcorn (?)
« on: Tuesday 05 April 11 20:56 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: mikeyr62 on Tuesday 05 April 11 18:02 BST (UK)
Quote from: paulchapman on Tuesday 05 April 11 12:38 BST (UK)
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.

5
Cheshire / Re: STUART FAMILY - Runcorn (?)
« on: Tuesday 05 April 11 20:48 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: mikeyr62 on Tuesday 05 April 11 20:05 BST (UK)
Quote from: heywood on Tuesday 05 April 11 18:59 BST (UK)
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.

6
Cheshire / Re: STUART FAMILY - Runcorn (?)
« on: Tuesday 05 April 11 20:30 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: mikeyr62 on Tuesday 05 April 11 17:58 BST (UK)

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.

7
Cheshire / Re: STUART FAMILY - Runcorn (?)
« on: Tuesday 05 April 11 12:38 BST (UK)  »
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?

8
Cheshire / Re: STUART FAMILY - Runcorn (?)
« on: Tuesday 05 April 11 10:11 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: heywood on Monday 04 April 11 23:34 BST (UK)
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.

9
Cheshire / Re: STUART FAMILY - Runcorn (?)
« on: Tuesday 05 April 11 10:02 BST (UK)  »
apologies to the copyright editor if i have been copying material over i shouldnt have.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 7