4
« on: Thursday 30 September 21 05:16 BST (UK) »
Thank you 'amondg'.
Yes his son "John" who I do not have in my tree applied for his estate which was valued at £100 (from memory).
So who was he???
I have a John listed as b.1803 d.1809 which was mentioned earlier in these replies. Have I missed another birth?
Looking at the 6 children there is a gap in the births from 1807 to 1815 so it is quite possible that there was another birth in that time frame. So if they lost a child named John in 1809 then it is likely that a new son would be called John. That was happening in a previous generation of the Turner line. Williams father and brother was named John. "If you Google Turner of Lane End" you will find that as potters they were well respected at the time.
Thanks for the death info on Charlotte. It is obvious that the families didn't move around much. I have been lucky enough to have obtained information by a researcher who was writing a book called "Staffordshire Women". Chapter 8 was all about Mary Ann Turner. Here is an extract from her research which she sent me which is where I obtained much of my information.
"They appear in the 1851 and 1861 censuses. In 1851 they just gave the enumerator their initials - daughter `E`, 18, a dressmaker, and sons `W`, 16, `W`, 14, `F`, 12, `J`, 9, `M`, 3 and `H`, 6 months. By 1861 we have the full names - Charlotte is the wife and the children are Elizabeth, William, Walter, John, Martin and Henry - all 10 years older of course. `F` seems to have died or been elsewhere. Father William was a potter, as were sons William and John. Walter was a `potter`s warehouseman` and Elizabeth was still a dressmaker. The others were `scholars`. As Mary Ann left £550 to Elizabeth and £50 to Martin, listing them as children of her brother William, I`m pretty sure that is the right household. What Mary Ann had against her other nephews I`m not sure - maybe she thought they were doing well enough not to need her money - or maybe she just didn`t like them much!