STUART FAMILY - Runcorn (?)

[paulchapman]

this could be your charles in 1861, ticks a few boxes. as they have no children you would summise they were recently married but as of yet i havent found a record of the marriage 
In Pancras RD, London
Charles Stuart 38 b Runcorn
Susan Stuart 38

[heywood]

to be honest with such common names without having access to the physical record i dont know how you can be sure of anything. in 1861 charles is still with his family


Charles Stuart age 29 b Manchester, living in Runcorn

Alexander Stuart   60
Sarah Stuart   59
Charles Stuart   29
Mary Stuart   18
Ann Boyer   67
Isabella Carodyce   38
Catharine Carodyce   14
Mary I Carodyce   12
Isabella L Carodyce   10
Elizabeth E Carodyce   7
John Nicholl   31
Wellington Cook   35

by 1871 his mother is living alone so he has presumably married.

This information is  1851   HO107; Piece: 2164; Folio: 463; Page: 9

The Stuarts are a separate household from the Carodyce family et al.
They have just been transcribed together in the index.

heywood

[heywood]

Paul and Mike,

Mary 'Stuart' of Nantwich is a different person

1851  HO107; Piece: 2169; Folio: 569; Page: 12

has the family transcribed as 'Tewart'.
Mary is 16 yrs which would fit with her marriage in 1852

best wishes
heywood

[heywood]

Paul's find for Charles and Susan fits

1861 RG9; Piece: 107; Folio: 115; Page: 58
Charles is a carpenter which fits with his occupation earlier

There is a death which also fits
Free BMD
 Mar 1868    Pancras  vol 1b pg 106
Charles Stuart 45 yrs

[paulchapman]

Paul and Mike,

Mary 'Stuart' of Nantwich is a different person

1851  HO107; Piece: 2169; Folio: 569; Page: 12

has the family transcribed as 'Tewart'.
Mary is 16 yrs which would fit with her marriage in 1852

best wishes
heywood

good work.

back to the drawing board.

[paulchapman]

apologies to the copyright editor if i have been copying material over i shouldnt have.

[paulchapman]

Paul's find for Charles and Susan fits

1861 RG9; Piece: 107; Folio: 115; Page: 58
Charles is a carpenter which fits with his occupation earlier

There is a death which also fits
Free BMD
 Mar 1868    Pancras  vol 1b pg 106
Charles Stuart 45 yrs

1871 susan is still living in st pancras now on her own (mis transcribed as stewart i believe) as a laundress so we can summise that charles had no heirs so thats one avenue closed.

[paulchapman]

back to mary, ignoring the mis transcribed one from 1836, i can only find one possible mary stuart on the census. in 1861 the lady in question is giving her place of birth as ashton under lyne, lancashire, there are no mary stuarts i can see giving this as a place of birth in 1851.

by 1861 this mary is lodging in ashton and by 1871 is living alone in ashton as a cotton winder. on the 1881 census there is no mary stuart matching this description. there is a mary baines, giving the same birth place and year and the same job now listed as a widow. there is no mary baines on the 1871 census with these details.

currently cannot find a marriage for a mary stuart to a baines bewteen 1871-1881.

could be the correct mary?

[mikeyr62]

to be honest with such common names without having access to the physical record i dont know how you can be sure of anything. in 1861 charles is still with his family


Charles Stuart age 29 b Manchester, living in Runcorn

Alexander Stuart   60
Sarah Stuart   59
Charles Stuart   29
Mary Stuart   18
Ann Boyer   67
Isabella Carodyce   38
Catharine Carodyce   14
Mary I Carodyce   12
Isabella L Carodyce   10
Elizabeth E Carodyce   7
John Nicholl   31
Wellington Cook   35

by 1871 his mother is living alone so he has presumably married.

This is fascinating - thank you very much.

But, again, it raises a number of questions, namely, who are these people:
Mary Stuart   18 and how does she fit in? Charles' sister would have been about 26 in 1861 
Ann Boyer   67
Isabella Carodyce   38
Catharine Carodyce   14
Mary I Carodyce   12
Isabella L Carodyce   10
Elizabeth E Carodyce   7
John Nicholl   31
Wellington Cook   35

Mike