RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => London and Middlesex => Topic started by: Mike Thw on Monday 05 March 18 16:09 GMT (UK)
-
In 1881 at ref Class: RG11; Piece: 298; Folio: 67; Page: 9 a Mary C(E?) A'court is recorded as daughter to Richard and Ann A'court.
Aged 23 (c 1858) this is the first record of her I've come across.
Can anybody find her befor 1881?
(Good luck with the surname - it ain't easy!)
-
She doesn't appear with parents in 1861/1871 does she, strange :-\
Have you found a birth record or baptism for her? Maybe she was a niece or something and put down wrong.
ancestry links to a Mary Ann Dunham but not sure why!
-
All other links are to that lady as Dunham or married name Theobald and I see on the same 1881 there is a William Theobald grandson so the links are there somehow.
Was Mary the mother of William.
I can't see the Dunham family in 1881 to see if Mary is there or not :-\ but she is with parents William & Ann 1861/1871
Siblings Harriet Elizabeth and Eliza
-
William Theobald was Mary's sister Alice's son.
Not found a birth/baptism record that comes close! Not found another related A'court family to which Mary belongs,
-
What's the mothers maiden name - or what should be the mothers maiden name if she were a daughter of Richard and Ann?
It's still a bit of a coincidence the ancestry link to the name Theobald and her having a nephew/brother in law called Theobald.
-
I think the age on the 1881 census could be 28?
Could this be her in the 1871 census Guys Hospital
Mary A Court patient 17 born Finsbury
Jennifer
-
Yes I agree it does look like 28.
So would that make her the Mary Edith born 1852?
Edith age 9 in 1861
Edith age 19 in 1871
Birth for her under Acourt Mary Edith Jun 1852 West London mothers name Smith?
-
Mary Edith marries in 1881 but just says full age. However her death in 1883 gives age 31 so I would stick my neck out and say the Mary that appears out of nowhere is in fact Mary Edith.
Jennifer noticing the age is probably 28 not 23 was a big help.
Hope you agree!
-
I think you're absolutely correct. Certainly looks "28" on the Original. Missed that >:(
Another minor problem solved!
Thanks
Mike