John Turner 1891 Census no trace

[Milliepede]

ancestry links to a death in Sep 1891 Lanchester but that's Mary Ann Turner not Mary Jane Turner 

that one is 46 so about right and right area. 

in 1891 census she is 44 in Lanchester district.

[DavyTee68]

Another family tree on ancestry has Mary Jane death as 1909 even more confusing giving that John says he's widowed 1901

John is married to Susan in 1901 but is widowed by 1911.

Maybe Mary Jane married again too 

Lol I'm getting mixed up I have so many facts going through my brain it hurts. My profile picture is actually how I feel 
So Mary is not dead by 1901 ?

Edited: no he's widowed coz Susan is dead not Mary Jane so yes Mary could be that death index you found

[Milliepede]

I know the feeling! 

Well she should be dead if John has remarried and I don't see her in 1901 with son William but which death is hers 

[DavyTee68]

I know the feeling! 

Well she should be dead if John has remarried and I don't see her in 1901 with son William but which death is hers 

I can't see why it would be Mary Ann though unless it's been transcribed incorrectly

[Milliepede]

I agree especially if a close relative registered the death. 

[DavyTee68]

So looking back on previous post this morning that other Ancestry tree that says Mary Jane death 1909 could be right 

[DavyTee68]

I agree especially if a close relative registered the death.

Sorry posted mine same time as yours so didn't see this one

[DavyTee68]

Mary Jane Turner Dec 1909 10a 325
Sunderland
Death index

[Milliepede]

That lady was 64.  You could ask the other tree where the 1909 information came from but probably just a punt.  If correct we should find her in 1901 somewhere.