1861 and 1871 look up for Stonehouse Gloucester please

[JennMorgon]

Please help me find my ancestor.  Her birth was registered in March Q 1861 in Stroud, Gloucester which covers the Stonehouse area..  The name given was Hannah Abia Rodway but no mothers maiden name was given - so its possible she was unmarried.  Census returns after 1881 state consistently she was born in Stonehouse, Gloucester.  Her name changes from Hannah, Anne and Annie - which are obvious changes to the original name of Hannah.  I have found her marriage to Henry Darke - and census returns after 1881.  Interestingly, her  first four children were registered as Darke with the mothers maiden name of Rodway but her  final 7 children were registered as Darke but the mothers maiden name was given as Turk !  The 1911 census suggests a long marriage with Henry Darke - and it ties in with the marriage to Henry Darke.   If anyone has access to 1861 and 1871 census - I would be interested to find out about her birth family.
Many thanks - its puzzling me !
Jenn Morgon

[JJen]

Hi Jenn,

Wonder if this could be Hannah -

1861 as transcribed (image looks like Rodway) -

John Bodway   51
Alice Bodway   58
Mary Bodway   dau unm 18
Anne A Bodway   granddaughter 1/12 b. Stonehouse, Gloucestershire

RG 9 Piece 1771 Folio 27 Page 15, Stonehouse

JJ

[giggsycat]

On GR it is transcribed as Rodway.

Giggsy

[JJen]

Above family on the 1851 -

John Rodway   47
Abiah Rodway   46
Ham Rodway   15
Mary Rodway   9
HO107 Piece 1964 Folio 47 Page 23, Stonehouse

Perhaps Hannah's middle name was from her grandmother.

JJ

[JennMorgon]

Many thanks to both of you.  It's possible that its the same family.   At least it gives me something to work on !
Jenn

[ACT61]

1871 possible
48 Catherine St, Gloucester
John Turk, Head, 29, Poulterers journeyman, City of Glos
Mary Turk, Wife, 28, Dressmaker, Stonehouse Glos
Hannah Turk, Dau 10, Stonehouse Glos

RG10 Piece 2614 Fo 38 page 20

Marriage Sep Q 1863
John Turk/Mary Rodway
Stroud  6a 551

[giggsycat]

ACT61 (good find).

Aha! I noticed that daughter Mary was supposed to be 9 on the 1851 but 10 on the 1861 census. Does not compute! The image on 61 is not easy to make out but looks more like 16/18? Would someone else like to take a look please?

Giggsy

[ACT61]

I took it as 18.

[giggsycat]

Well that would fit nicely wouldn't it? I wonder who the scoundrel was that led her astray?! 

Giggsy