Help unblocking dead end with Annie Santer (b. 1863)

[Eyesee]

From the name in the will, Louis Weedon, a Charles SANTER married an Ellen WEEDON in 1898, according to the Vic BDM website.

Charles on Findagrave
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/229233858/charles-santer

Ian C

[Rachael89]

Wow another amazing success story! Thanks so much everyone - I've been searching the Australian newspaper archive and have found many mentions of him. He seems to have been the proprietor of a series of hotels/beer joints in Victoria, which lines up with what we know about him and his family (his father, Charles Snr, was a 'beershop owner' and it seems that both father and son got prosecuted for breaching licencing conditions by selling beer on a Sunday!).

The only remaining gap is Charles' brother John Henry Santer:

- Born 19 June 1850, Cranbrook - named John Santer on birth certificate
- Christened as 'John Henry Santer' on 11 August 1850
- 1851 census - name given as 'Henry Santer'
- 1861 census - name given as 'John Henry Santer'
- 1871 census - name given as 'John Santer'

In the 1871 census, he was living alone and his occupation was 'butcher'. I can't find any trace of him after that, and again no matching deaths. Would be very grateful for any help/assistance with him to establish the fates of all the siblings!

[rosie99]

Have you discounted this one
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:ML7C-BZH?lang=en

[Rachael89]

Have you discounted this one
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:ML7C-BZH?lang=en

Thanks - seems unlikely unfortunately as that John Santer emigrated in 1860, and we know my John Santer was still in England until at least 1871.

[rosie99]

I could not see that one in USA prior to the 1900’s, I wondered if the 1860 date was wrong

[Rachael89]

I could not see that one in USA prior to the 1900’s, I wondered if the 1860 date was wrong

It could be! Unfortunately my Ancestry subscription isn't global, so if anyone can access more information about this person that would be very helpful.

[Eyesee]

The John Santer in Oklahoma was the son of Iden Santer and Mary Bourne, born in Frittenden, Kent in 1850. Their only child. The Caroline Santer in 1851 UK census with Iden and Mary was born as a Bourne before the marriage.

Iden Santer died in Headcorn, Kent in 1851, run over by a wagon, and his widow Mary married Frederick Whiting in 1853 and they all went to the US in 1858. They all appear in Oklahoma starting in 1860 US census.

Going on a couple of trees on Ancestry, Iden Santer was a brother to Charles the father of the family OP is looking for. They were both sons of Stephen Santer and Judith Busbridge.

That would make the two Johns first cousins.

John, son of Iden, died in Oklahoma in 1921.

Ian C

[Eyesee]

According to the same tree as above, John Henry married a Betsy Marrow in Romney Marsh in Sep qtr 1873 as Henry Santer. Only one bride showing on FreeBMD though, Rosena Ovenden.

The same tree has them having a son James Thomas Santer born 1872, but he doesn't show up on FreeBMD or GRO, but he does show up as being baptised at Kilndown, Kent on 21 Jul 1872, s/o John Henry Santer and Betsey Marrow.

Ian C

[Rachael89]

According to the same tree as above, John Henry married a Betsy Marrow in Romney Marsh in Sep qtr 1873 as Henry Santer. Only one bride showing on FreeBMD though, Rosena Ovenden.

The same tree has them having a son James Thomas Santer born 1872, but he doesn't show up on FreeBMD or GRO, but he does show up as being baptised at Kilndown, Kent on 21 Jul 1872, s/o John Henry Santer and Betsey Marrow.

Ian C

Thank you! That's a really helpful tip - I've been doing some digging into this, and think I've uncovered at least part of the mystery. First of all, I think that tree lists the marriages erroneously - they relate to a different Henry Santer in a different part of Kent.

While I couldn't find any birth record for a James Thomas Santer, I could find a birth record for a James Thomas Barrow born on 1872 in Cranbrook (in the census, his birthplace appears as Goudhurst or Kilndown, which matches the baptism record). So I think 'Marrow' is a transcription error and the child's mother was actually Betsy Barrow, and James was her illegitimate child (on the GRO, he appears with the dash indicating no father listed).

I know that occasionally the natural father's name would be written on the baptism record or similar, so maybe that's what happened here and that's why there's a baptism record for a James Thomas Santer? It still doesn't help answer the mystery of what happened to John but it helps a lot.

On his own marriage record, James records his father's name as 'John Barrow' and indicates he's deceased at the time (1893), and of unknown occupation. So it looks like James was (very understandably) hedging the truth of his own background, which he may not have been fully aware of himself (his mother died a few years after he was born).

ETA: From checking the census, John Santer and Betsy Barrow were literally living on the same street when the 1871 census was taken, which strongly supports this theory.