RootsChat.Com

General => The Common Room => Topic started by: DavyTee68 on Monday 13 November 17 09:06 GMT (UK)

Title: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Monday 13 November 17 09:06 GMT (UK)
Hi Folks
1891 Census info needed please
Looking for John Turner (b) 1844 Sacriston, Co Durham.
Occupation a Blacksmith
I have a feeling he is living by himself or with relatives.
searched all the usual Genealogy sites and no luck
Any one help please. 
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: PaulineJ on Monday 13 November 17 10:33 GMT (UK)
where was he in 1881 & 1901 and with whom?
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Milliepede on Monday 13 November 17 10:38 GMT (UK)
Living by himself - was he a single man or a widower?  Any children he may have been living with?
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Milliepede on Monday 13 November 17 10:43 GMT (UK)
Does he have a wife Susan in 1901 but a wife Mary Jane in 1881?

I can see Mary Jane with her children in 1891 married but no husband.

Is there a marriage for him to Susan or are they just living together.

 
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Milliepede on Monday 13 November 17 11:14 GMT (UK)
Not finding him in 1891.  Maybe tracing Susan back would help.  They have an adopted daughter Annie in 1901 and Susan has died by 1911.

There's a John Turner/Susannah Major marriage in 1899 Chester-le-Street but don't know if that is them. 

Susan born 1839 Long Benton Northumberland
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Monday 13 November 17 12:07 GMT (UK)
Not finding him in 1891.  Maybe tracing Susan back would help.  They have an adopted daughter Annie in 1901 and Susan has died by 1911.

There's a John Turner/Susannah Major marriage in 1899 Chester-le-Street but don't know if that is them. 

Susan born 1839 Long Benton Northumberland

Yeah that's him just can't fin a 1891 census for him
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Monday 13 November 17 12:08 GMT (UK)
where was he in 1881 & 1901 and with whom?

Mary Jane in 1881 Durham and Susan in !901 also Durham
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: glenclare on Monday 13 November 17 12:47 GMT (UK)
1891, Mary J Turner is living with son William and the rest of her children. No sign of John with them.
She describes herself as married.
Different colliery from 1881.
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Monday 13 November 17 15:16 GMT (UK)
1891, Mary J Turner is living with son William and the rest of her children. No sign of John with them.
She describes herself as married.
Different colliery from 1881.

Yip I saw that. So where's he gone ? ???
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Milliepede on Monday 13 November 17 21:50 GMT (UK)
Maybe tracing Susan back would help.  They have an adopted daughter Annie in 1901.

If we could find her in 1891 to see if they had got together by then.

 
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Tuesday 14 November 17 07:38 GMT (UK)
Maybe tracing Susan back would help.  They have an adopted daughter Annie in 1901.

If we could find her in 1891 to see if they had got together by then.

Well on her marriage cert to John in 1899 it has her name as Susannah Major and father's name as John Bone
So I'm guessing that Major was her married name but maiden name is Bone
So could be really hard to find her
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Milliepede on Tuesday 14 November 17 08:35 GMT (UK)
Ah so that was the right marriage then.  I was just offering it up as a suggestion (didn't realise you had the proof) 

Will have a look for her. 

There's a Hannah born right place right time with father John - what occupation did John Bone have please?

I realise all this isn't finding John Turner in 1891 but just in case it helps.

Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Milliepede on Tuesday 14 November 17 08:54 GMT (UK)
On one census the name is Bones so looked for a Susannah Bones marriage and there is this possible pairing

Mar 1854 Newcastle

Susannah Bones
Hance Magor or Major

That couple are together in 1871/1881/1891 but Susannah is older than the Susan in 1901 by 5 or 6 years.

Death for Hans Major in 1894 which would leave her free to marry as a widow in 1899.

So all that does nothing to find John Turner sorry  :-[

Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Tuesday 14 November 17 09:51 GMT (UK)
On one census the name is Bones so looked for a Susannah Bones marriage and there is this possible pairing

Mar 1854 Newcastle

Susannah Bones
Hance Magor or Major

That couple are together in 1871/1881/1891 but Susannah is older than the Susan in 1901 by 5 or 6 years.

Death for Hans Major in 1894 which would leave her free to marry as a widow in 1899.

So all that does nothing to find John Turner sorry  :-[

Makes sense though Millie.
I don't actually have the Marriage cert just found an index on Familysearch and it mentioned father as John Bone.
That is the right marriage to John in 1899 though.
As has been said previous Mary Jane is living with William her son on the 1891 Census and shes down as married. Ive since found out from another Ancestry close relative that John was a bit of a player and had a mistress around this time.
I know Mary Jane died between 1891 and 1901.
I cant find her death though. The only Mary Jane Turner death index is a 5 year old.
John Turner is living and married to Susan on the 1901 census she is 62 on that census with Annie also living with them down as A Daughter
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Tuesday 14 November 17 10:25 GMT (UK)
Another family tree on ancestry has Mary Jane death as 1909 ??? even more confusing giving that John says he's widowed 1901

Has anyone ever had a Nervous breakdown searching for relatives coz I'm close  ::)
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: glenclare on Tuesday 14 November 17 11:45 GMT (UK)
I have been trying to find a birth for Annie, and William, but so far I haven’t found any I am convinced are right. With Annie born 1892 I thought it might help.
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Tuesday 14 November 17 12:16 GMT (UK)
I have been trying to find a birth for Annie, and William, but so far I haven’t found any I am convinced are right. With Annie born 1892 I thought it might help.

I think Annie and William were born Bell and adopted by John and Susan
Annie Bell 10b 292 1891 Newcastle upon Tyne
William Bell 10b 299 1895 Newcastle upon Tyne
There was another thread but not sure how I add threads to this post
John Morland Turner's Father, George Turner (b) 1820 married a Anne Bell so I'm guessing its something to do with her family
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Milliepede on Tuesday 14 November 17 14:45 GMT (UK)
Quote
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  :-X
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Milliepede on Tuesday 14 November 17 14:50 GMT (UK)
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.
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Tuesday 14 November 17 15:02 GMT (UK)
Quote
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  :-X

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  :P
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
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Milliepede on Tuesday 14 November 17 15:06 GMT (UK)
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  :-\
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Tuesday 14 November 17 15:09 GMT (UK)
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
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Milliepede on Tuesday 14 November 17 15:12 GMT (UK)
I agree especially if a close relative registered the death. 
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Tuesday 14 November 17 15:13 GMT (UK)
So looking back on previous post this morning that other Ancestry tree that says Mary Jane death 1909 could be right  :-\
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Tuesday 14 November 17 15:14 GMT (UK)
I agree especially if a close relative registered the death.

Sorry posted mine same time as yours so didn't see this one
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Tuesday 14 November 17 15:21 GMT (UK)
Mary Jane Turner Dec 1909 10a 325
Sunderland
Death index
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Milliepede on Tuesday 14 November 17 15:27 GMT (UK)
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. 
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Tuesday 14 November 17 15:30 GMT (UK)
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.

Ahhh ok didn't see the age as working from me mobile in the car lol
The other tree didn't have any sources for that death
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Milliepede on Tuesday 14 November 17 15:38 GMT (UK)
There are a few trees with her on - one has the 1891 Mary Ann death so really don't know which is right (if either)

And we still haven't found John in 1891, have tried all kinds of permutations but no luck :(

Time to put the kettle on I think  :D
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Tuesday 14 November 17 15:52 GMT (UK)
There are a few trees with her on - one has the 1891 Mary Ann death so really don't know which is right (if either)

And we still haven't found John in 1891, have tried all kinds of permutations but no luck :(

Time to put the kettle on I think  :D

Yes thanks for looking Millie enjoy your cuppa
I'll resume tomorrow I think i've been looking since this morning  ::)
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Saturday 18 November 17 18:54 GMT (UK)
Ive found a note ive written stating an address for John 1891 Census but cant find it when I put it into a search on Ancestry
anyone help
address is 65 Church Street, Boldon, Durham
Anyone able to find that census record please
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Mabel Bagshawe on Saturday 18 November 17 19:03 GMT (UK)
Ive found a note ive written stating an address for John 1891 Census but cant find it when I put it into a search on Ancestry
anyone help
address is 65 Church Street, Boldon, Durham
Anyone able to find that census record please

This is the Church St family - don't think it's yours

John J Turner    36 - b Castle Eden, coal miner
Elizabeth Turner    36
James R Turner    16
Alfred S Turner    13
John R Turner    9
Isabella Turner    5
Mark Turner    3
William W Turner    7/12
Ralph Graham    26

RG12, 4162, 39, 36
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Saturday 18 November 17 19:17 GMT (UK)
Ive found a note ive written stating an address for John 1891 Census but cant find it when I put it into a search on Ancestry
anyone help
address is 65 Church Street, Boldon, Durham
Anyone able to find that census record please

This is the Church St family - don't think it's yours

John J Turner    36 - b Castle Eden, coal miner
Elizabeth Turner    36
James R Turner    16
Alfred S Turner    13
John R Turner    9
Isabella Turner    5
Mark Turner    3
William W Turner    7/12
Ralph Graham    26

RG12, 4162, 39, 36

Don't look like it  :(
Thanks Mabel
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Monday 08 January 18 11:57 GMT (UK)
Re Opening this hope you don't mind

I am trying to order the Death certificate for Mary Ann Turner 10a 161 Lanchester 3rd qtr on GRO but it keeps coming up with NOT FOUND ???

What am I doing wrong any ideas ?
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Milliepede on Monday 08 January 18 12:00 GMT (UK)
How far do you get before it says NOT FOUND?  And what year are you trying?

If you haven't already try logging out and in again and starting afresh  :)
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: JenB on Monday 08 January 18 12:03 GMT (UK)
The page number on the GRO website shows 164 not 161 (as on freeBMD).

Just search for Mary Ann Turner, died 1891, Lanchester.

It comes up straight away  ;)

Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Milliepede on Monday 08 January 18 12:08 GMT (UK)
Ah well done JenB hopefully that will resolve the problem.
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: JenB on Monday 08 January 18 12:08 GMT (UK)
The page number on the GRO website shows 164 not 161 (as on freeBMD).

I think in fact the page number on the scan from which freeBMD took the number could well be 164, but its very blurred. A lot of the 4's near the edge of the page look at bit like 1's.
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Monday 08 January 18 12:13 GMT (UK)
The page number on the GRO website shows 164 not 161 (as on freeBMD).

I think in fact the page number on the scan from which freeBMD took the number could well be 164, but its very blurred. A lot of the 4's near the edge of the page look at bit like 1's.

Thanks Jen I have it now  :)
Probably not her but at least I can eliminate
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: JenB on Monday 08 January 18 14:27 GMT (UK)
Just wondering - when did John Morland Turner and Mary Jane marry? I can't seem to find it?

Edit
ErrorSPAM
REPORT THIS POST AS SPAM (Use 'Report to Moderator'). DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS IN THIS POST. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS PERSON.
]Ignore me - I've found it now - she's indexed as Fretker[/color] ::)
         
(These Turners of yours do cause you some problems  ;D )

Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: JenB on Monday 08 January 18 14:56 GMT (UK)
Mary Jane Turner Dec 1909 10a 325
Sunderland
Death index

According to the free index on Durham Records Online this lady lived at 9 Croft Avenue, Sunderland.
She appears on the 1901 census as the wife of Robert Turner (see RG 13 / 4709 / 70 / 21 )
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Monday 08 January 18 16:01 GMT (UK)
Mary Jane Turner Dec 1909 10a 325
Sunderland
Death index

According to the free index on Durham Records Online this lady lived at 9 Croft Avenue, Sunderland.
She appears on the 1901 census as the wife of Robert Turner (see RG 13 / 4709 / 70 / 21 )

Cool thanks Jen that eliminates that one.
Yes I'll be glad to put them to rest soon lol.
I got to the T&W archives and William Turner ain't in Newcastle so going to Durham Records on Wednesday and hopefully find him buried in Chopwell.
One upside I found John Morland Turner burial plot today at Harelaw Cemetery 😀
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: JenB on Monday 08 January 18 16:08 GMT (UK)
I got to the T&W archives and William Turner ain't in Newcastle so going to Durham Records on Wednesday and hopefully find him buried in Chopwell.
One upside I found John Morland Turner burial plot today at Harelaw Cemetery 😀

T & W user guides indicate they’ve got the Chopwell Parish Records, you could have looked at them there rather than going to Durham  :-\

My great grandfather is buried at Hare Law  :)

(Sorry, both off topic I know :-X)
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: JenB on Monday 08 January 18 17:18 GMT (UK)
Now then.....these Turners are a right lot!

Northern Echo 19th August 1890
(this follows a report of an assault by another man upon his wife)
........John Turner, a Blacksmith, also living in Hamsterley Colliery, was also accused of committing a similar assault upon his wife, Mary Jane Turner, on August 2nd. Complainant was in a weak and exhausted condition from her husband's ill-usage. Her voice was scarcely above a whisper. The Bench meted out to the defendant (who had absconded), a similar punishment*, granted a separation, and ordered him to pay 6s weekly towards his wife's maintenance.

* which appears to have been 3 months hard labour, then bound over to keep the peace for six months.

So - it looks like they were separated in 1890. This probably accounts for why son William is named head of household in 1891.

Looks like Mary Jane recovered fairly quickly  :-X And John was around fairly quickly as well  :-\

Durham County Advertiser, 19th September 1890.
Mary Jane Taylor of Hamsterley Colliery was charged with threatening to assault Elizabeth Mary Anderson.......Complainant also charged John Turner with using threats against her on the same day, 5th September. The bench.......considered that the cases were trivial and should not have been brought to court. Mary Jane Turner, one of the defendants in the previous case charged Benjamin Roberts, a miner of Hamsterley Colliery, with threatening to kill her on 6th September.....the defendant was bound over to keep the peace.....A charge of  assault brought by the last defendant, Benjamin Roberts, against Wm. Turner, a brother of the complainant in the foregoing case, was dismissed.
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Monday 08 January 18 17:40 GMT (UK)
I got to the T&W archives and William Turner ain't in Newcastle so going to Durham Records on Wednesday and hopefully find him buried in Chopwell.
One upside I found John Morland Turner burial plot today at Harelaw Cemetery 😀

T & W user guides indicate they’ve got the Chopwell Parish Records, you could have looked at them there rather than going to Durham  :-\

My great grandfather is buried at Hare Law  :)

(Sorry, both off topic I know :-X)

Damn,  wish I had realised they had the records
I'll say hello to your GGF I'm having a trip there tomorrow Jen  ;)
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: JenB on Monday 08 January 18 17:42 GMT (UK)
Damn,  wish I had realised they had the records

You can check holdings on microfilm here https://twarchives.org.uk/collection/user-guides-and-information
Chopwell, St John the Evangelist
x 1900-1970
m 1902-1974
bs 1913-1973
b 1900-1942
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Monday 08 January 18 17:43 GMT (UK)
Now then.....these Turners are a right lot!

Northern Echo 19th August 1890
(this follows a report of an assault by another man upon his wife)
........John Turner, a Blacksmith, also living in Hamsterley Colliery, was also accused of committing a similar assault upon his wife, Mary Jane Turner, on August 2nd. Complainant was in a weak and exhausted condition from her husband's ill-usage. Her voice was scarcely above a whisper. The Bench meted out to the defendant (who had absconded), a similar punishment*, granted a separation, and ordered him to pay 6s weekly towards his wife's maintenance.

* which appears to have been 3 months hard labour, then bound over to keep the peace for six months.

So - it looks like they were separated in 1890. This probably accounts for why son William is named head of household in 1891.

Looks like Mary Jane recovered fairly quickly  :-X And John was around fairly quickly as well  :-\

Durham County Advertiser, 19th September 1890.
Mary Jane Taylor of Hamsterley Colliery was charged with threatening to assault Elizabeth Mary Anderson.......Complainant also charged John Turner with using threats against her on the same day, 5th September. The bench.......considered that the cases were trivial and should not have been brought to court. Mary Jane Turner, one of the defendants in the previous case charged Benjamin Roberts, as miner of Hamsterley Colliery, with threatening to kill her on 6th September.....the defendant was bound over to keep the peace.....A charge of  assault brought by the last defendant, Benjamin Roberts, against Wm. Turner, a brother of the complainant in the foregoing case, was dismissed.

I think I've followed the wrong family no way am I related to this lot. I'm dead placid  ;D
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Monday 08 January 18 17:44 GMT (UK)
Thanks for both of the above Jen. They were totally mad the Turner family  :P
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: JenB on Monday 08 January 18 17:45 GMT (UK)
Thanks for both of the above Jen. They were totally mad the Turner family  :P

They certainly seems to have had a bit of a reign of terror in Hamsterley Colliery  ;D
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Monday 08 January 18 17:50 GMT (UK)
Thanks for both of the above Jen. They were totally mad the Turner family  :P


They certainly seems to have had a bit of a reign of terror in Hamsterley Colliery  ;D

It's getting like Peaky Blinders  :D
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: JenB on Monday 08 January 18 18:51 GMT (UK)
Durham County Advertiser, 19th September 1890.
Mary Jane Taylor of Hamsterley Colliery was charged with threatening to assault Elizabeth Mary Anderson......

Apologies, the surname was, of course, Turner, not Taylor.  :-[
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Monday 08 January 18 19:08 GMT (UK)
Durham County Advertiser, 19th September 1890.
Mary Jane Taylor of Hamsterley Colliery was charged with threatening to assault Elizabeth Mary Anderson......

Apologies, the surname was, of course, Turner, not Taylor.  :-[
I gotcha Jen  :)
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: Jomot on Tuesday 09 January 18 16:04 GMT (UK)

Looks like Mary Jane recovered fairly quickly  :-X And John was around fairly quickly as well  :-\

Durham County Advertiser, 19th September 1890.
Mary Jane Taylor of Hamsterley Colliery was charged with threatening to assault Elizabeth Mary Anderson.......Complainant also charged John Turner with using threats against her on the same day, 5th September. The bench.......considered that the cases were trivial and should not have been brought to court. Mary Jane Turner, one of the defendants in the previous case charged Benjamin Roberts, a miner of Hamsterley Colliery, with threatening to kill her on 6th September.....the defendant was bound over to keep the peace.....A charge of  assault brought by the last defendant, Benjamin Roberts, against Wm. Turner, a brother of the complainant in the foregoing case, was dismissed.

If Wm Turner was Mary Jane's brother, then isn't this John's daughter rather than his wife?
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: JenB on Tuesday 09 January 18 16:59 GMT (UK)

Looks like Mary Jane recovered fairly quickly  :-X And John was around fairly quickly as well  :-\

Durham County Advertiser, 19th September 1890.
Mary Jane Taylor of Hamsterley Colliery was charged with threatening to assault Elizabeth Mary Anderson.......Complainant also charged John Turner with using threats against her on the same day, 5th September. The bench.......considered that the cases were trivial and should not have been brought to court. Mary Jane Turner, one of the defendants in the previous case charged Benjamin Roberts, a miner of Hamsterley Colliery, with threatening to kill her on 6th September.....the defendant was bound over to keep the peace.....A charge of  assault brought by the last defendant, Benjamin Roberts, against Wm. Turner, a brother of the complainant in the foregoing case, was dismissed.

If Wm Turner was Mary Jane's brother, then isn't this John's daughter rather than his wife?

Yes, you could be right. John and Mary Jane had children called William, John and Mary Jane.
What a family  ;D
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Tuesday 09 January 18 17:18 GMT (UK)
John also had a brother called William so may be him
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Thursday 11 January 18 11:50 GMT (UK)
Re Opening this hope you don't mind

I am trying to order the Death certificate for Mary Ann Turner 10a 161 Lanchester 3rd qtr on GRO but it keeps coming up with NOT FOUND ???

What am I doing wrong any ideas ?

Well what a surprise it is Mary Jane Turner.
Certificate states wife of John Turner Blacksmith and son John Turner in attendance.
Living at 51 Hamsterley Colliery.
She died 27th August 1891 Of Bronchitis and Viral Regurgitation ? and Dropsy whatever that is.
Why she is down as Mary Ann Turner i've no idea.
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: JenB on Thursday 11 January 18 11:54 GMT (UK)
Excellent. Another one sorted  ;D
Dropsy: https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13311


Now find where she's buried  :-X
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Thursday 11 January 18 11:59 GMT (UK)
Excellent. Another one sorted  ;D
Dropsy: https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13311


Now find where she's buried  :-X

 :D Nay Bother
Title: Re: John Turner 1891 Census no trace
Post by: DavyTee68 on Thursday 11 January 18 12:10 GMT (UK)
Excellent. Another one sorted  ;D
Dropsy: https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13311

Ahhh so that's Dropsy thank you Jen