Peck/Stokes: 2nd opinion?

[soltaran]

 I'm researching my wife's family ...

Her grandfather was a Maurice Henry Stokes (1916) born in the Vanbrugh Hill workhouse/infirmary to a Rose Stokes.  His birth certificate gives her living in the workhouse, but also lists her as a machinist of 49 Dacre Street, Lee.  When I examined the 1911 census for that address, I found a John Stokes (c.1844) listed as 'brother' - apparently to one Henry Peck (c.1876).

Going back to the 1891 census, I can find a Henry & John Peck with matching birth dates ... along with a sister Rose Peck (c.1886).  Parents are listed as William & Charlotte. That would seem to put her in the frame as a potential unmarried 29-30 year old mother in the middle of WW1 ... soldier?

If I now go back to the 1881 census, I get William & Charlotte, 2 * Jane (1 listed on the 1891) - and a Henry Stokes, listed as an illegitimate son (c.1876) - which appears to match the Henry in 1891.

I've been unable to find a marriage entry for William & Charlotte (Stokes?) ... the fact that 'Stokes' also appears to crop up in the children makes me wonder if they were in fact married; I'm about to order a birth certificate for Rose, but I'm speculating that she entered the workhouse to give birth under her mother's maiden(?) name ... it also seems odd that John would appear to have adopted the Stokes surname by 1911.

Or maybe I'm completely barking up the wrong tree! - a second opinion would be appreciated!

[CaroleW]

Just to clarify the 1881 entry for you - there is a Jane aged 3 and a Mary A aged 1 b Lewisham.  There is a transcription error which I have reported

[CaroleW]

Henry Stokes birth reg

Births March qtr 1876     
Henry Stokes    Lewisham  1d 1004

[CaroleW]

I've had a good root around and I think you are barking up the right tree - not the wrong one

I personally would not bother with Rose (Rosie's) birth cert as I doubt it will tell you anything more than you know.   Because she was registered as Peck - it will just show parents as William and Charlotte nee Stokes.  I would go for Henry Stokes birth cert.   No guarantees but you may possibly get some info other than name of mother = Charlotte Stokes

Charlotte appears to be a servant in 1871 - aged 21 b London

[soltaran]

Thanks for the support; all this is because the family have never known anything about Maurice's history - and there's no-one alive that we know who might know anything ... it's all speculation and a puzzle.

[softly softly]

Hi,
What an interesting post. Looking at the 1901 census ref rg13 1556 44 39 there is a William Peck aged 48 born Greenwich occupation journey plumber. He is allegedly married to a Christina. What makes this interesting is that Christina and all the children were born LEE Kent. The eldest being Christina aged 6 birth ref dec q 1894 Lewisham 1d 1168. There is also a death of a Charlotte Peck aged 43 sept q 1893 Lewisham 1d 707.
I too cannot find as yet a marriage for William/Charlotte or William/Christina bur as suggested Henry's birth record could well help, also the birth cert of Christina. Will keep looking.

John

[CaroleW]

Hi

None of the children on that 1901 entry match the Peck family on the 1891 but look at the other similarities
1891 16 Summerfields Lee - all children from Jane onwards b Greenwich

William Peck 39 plumber & gasfitter b Greenwich
Charlotte 38 b Lee
Henry 15 b Lee
Jane   13
Emily 9
John   7
Rose   5
Joseph 3
Frances J 8 mths

Whereas the 1901 is as follows - Wisbech Cambridge - all b Greenwich Kent except Charles :

William Peck 48 journeyman plumber
Christina  33
Christina Peck 6
Elizabeth Peck 5
Gertrude Peck 3
William Peck 2
Charles Peck 4 months b Wisbech
Esther Derham 21 sister in law

The 1881 census shows her as Christiana Derham b 1869 Lee Kent but no marriage on freebmd

[softly softly]

Hi,
Posting this as others who are more experienced may be able to add tooor dismiss.
1871 census ref rg10 764 4 shows the following household.

Charlotte Stokes 59 widow
George Stokes 19 son
William Stokes 27 gen lab
Charlotte Stokes 22
Frederick Stokes 3 born Lee Kent
Elizabeth Stokes 2 born Lee Kent.

Freebmd has a marriage of William Stokes/ Charlotte Coppin march q 1868 Lewisham 1d 895. Charlotte Coppin birth ref sept q 1848 Lewisham 5 306

The Charlotte Peck death in 1893 recorded her death age as 43 which almost ties in with birth year. Henry was born as Stokes in 1876 Lee Kent.

As previously posted the birth cert of Henry may well show mothers maiden name- hopefully Coppin.
By 1881 Charlotte appears with William Peck. I haven't been able to find a death for a William Stokes that fits between 1871-81 but should he and Charlotte have split up she may well not have been in a position to marry William Peck. I still feel that the William Peck in the 1901 census with Christina (and also1911) is the same as 1881/91.

John

[soltaran]

The 1911 census states that William & Charlotte (Wisbech) were married in 1894 (married 17 yrs). That would preclude the Charlotte Peck that died in 1893.

Like I said - a puzzle
I'll need to give some more thought to the possible 1871 link and draw some possible connections

Just looked a bit more; the reason I couldn't understand (or misunderstood) the 1871 entry quoted was that 1) the Charlotte (1812) is actually 'Caroline' , and I didn't realise there are actually 2 households in one!  So it could be a decent lead. - the only thing that bothers me is the apparent disappearance of Frederick and Elizabeth by 1881 - although I concede that they could have died.

Waiting on Rose's birth certificate (should contain the same info as Henry's - and it's Rose's I'm interested in ... she is (apparently) the link.

btw - anyone know how to find out about Barnado's boys?