Peart, a real puzzler.

[casalguidi]

I can't see them in 1891 either.  Perhaps they are living under some badly mistranscribed surname somewhere?   

If Frederick is listed as PEART and his birth registered as PEART then it does lead us to think that Elizabeth may have been married to a PEART doesn't it?  It would certainly explain why she didn't marry THOMPSON when you would expected her to have?

Have you searched for a marriage of Elizabeth to James THOMPSON for some years after their first born child?  My husband's own gt grandparents didn't marry until some 15 years after they started having children together and neither of them had been married before as far as I can tell.

Casalguidi

[justevi]

Ah no I havent looked that far ahead. I assumed that as they were together and her name given as Thompson in 1881 that her husband had died and she had remarried. Another avenue to explore....thanks!

[justevi]

Just wanted to update you!
I found a William PEAT/MARY Elizabeth Theaker marriage in 1871 but wasnt very optimistic, however today I had a look for a William Peart in Redcar area and found one in Kirkleatham, married, 2 children, no wife and born same place as my 1871 marriage! One child was Kate and I looked for her birth. She was registered in Carnforth, Lancs as Tryphena Kate and my Elizabeth had a sister Bertha Tryphena! Kind lady in Lancaster reg office is doing a lookup on her mother for me and should know tomorrow but will be one heck of a co-incidence if it isnt my Elizabeth Theaker! So looks like my g grandmother left 2 of her kids and legged it with baby and my grandfather! I doubt they were ever married and I needed that MC to move on with James :-( One step forward and two back yet again LOL