HiJackie
this is your mott family in 1871, mistranscribed as Matt
-----------------------------------------
Elizth Ann Matt 29 Stockport, Cheshire, England Brinnington Cheshire
James Matt 31 Stockport, Cheshire, England Head Brinnington Cheshire
Jane Matt 10 Stockport, Cheshire, England Brinnington Cheshire
John Matt 8 Stockport, Cheshire, England Brinnington Cheshire
Martha A Matt 8 Stockport, Cheshire, England Brinnington Cheshire
Thomas Matt 30 Stockport, Cheshire, England Brinnington Cheshire
William Matt 11 Stockport, Cheshire, England Brinnington Cheshire
----------------------------------
RG10/3665 Folio 61
------------------------
Joe
Hi Jackie,
Just been reading thru the above from 'Joe', and I'm having problems with it. Starting at the top, there is no indication as to who Eliz. Ann was - one assumes the wife?
James MATT could indeed be James MOTT - there is one registered 1839 Sep qtr 19.216 Stockport, but according to my records this guy wed a Sarah Ann (not Elizabeth Ann) in 1871 June qtr 8a.2, and was father to an Elizabeth in 1877.
According to the GRO there was a marriage of a James MOTT in Stockport in 1859 - June qtr 8a.23, which would tie in nicely with the supposed first born William, 11.
Daughter Jane does not appear in the GRO as either a MATT or MOTT, in fact the surname MATT itself does not appear.
Son John MATT/MOTT, 8, could be John MOTT 1862 June qtr 8a.86. He wed Susannah Rowland, as you know.
Of the remaining issue stated in the 1871 census, Martha is not in the GRO under MOTT. William MATT, 11, is possibly the MOTT registered 1859 Dec qtr 8a.67.
Likewise, Thomas MATT, 30, I couldn't find.
I guess that it is possible that the missing ones were registered under another mis-spelling?
Weird !!! Never mind, I'll keep looking.
Fred
