Author Topic: Mary Ann Stoker 1894  (Read 3709 times)

Offline sandersonpe

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 12
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Mary Ann Stoker 1894
« Reply #9 on: Friday 29 April 16 21:03 BST (UK) »
I am also trying to trace Meggie Lumsden nee Stoker Date of Death and where she was living when she died.

Offline giggsycat

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 846
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Mary Ann Stoker 1894
« Reply #10 on: Friday 29 April 16 21:06 BST (UK) »
Looking at Mary A rather than Mary Ann?

Deaths Jun 1924   
Stoker    Mary A    29    Chester-le-S.    10a   552

"Are you lonesome tonight?"

Will have a look for Meggie now then.

Offline giggsycat

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 846
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Mary Ann Stoker 1894
« Reply #11 on: Friday 29 April 16 21:09 BST (UK) »
Wonder if she was recorded as MAGGIE?

Deaths Jun 1968   
LUMSDEN    MAGGIE    84    DURHAM N    1A   406

EDIT Durham N included Chester-le-Street

Offline giggsycat

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 846
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Mary Ann Stoker 1894
« Reply #12 on: Friday 29 April 16 21:16 BST (UK) »
So if this is your Ralph it is in the same RD.

Deaths Jun 1959   
LUMSDEN    Ralph    75    Durham N.    1a   385


Offline thebottos

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Mary Ann Stoker 1894
« Reply #13 on: Friday 29 April 16 21:17 BST (UK) »
Sorry yes I meant 1901. Ive lost the plot! I checked out the possible marriages and found a match with James McClelland but he married an Mary Ann Stoker 28 Sept 190 whose father was called John. In 1901 she was only 6 and living at home with William Stoker 43 and Jane Joanna Stoker 41, Jane Stoker 23 and Meggie Stoker 17. Theres a bit of an age gap from 17 to 6 in those days that's unusual. I assumed William and Jane Joanna are her parents but beginning to wonder maybe if they are not? 

Offline giggsycat

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 846
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Mary Ann Stoker 1894
« Reply #14 on: Friday 29 April 16 21:24 BST (UK) »
Now I'm confusing you! You missed my edit on that 1901 marriage:

"Scrap this one. I am trying to get her married off at the age of seven".

Let me see if I can find the family on earlier censuses. I should have done that in the first place. but this is such good fun!

Offline giggsycat

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 846
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Mary Ann Stoker 1894
« Reply #15 on: Friday 29 April 16 21:29 BST (UK) »
I've just looked at the 1901 and I see what you mean now. Meggie must have been from a first marriage of William. Still looking.

Offline thebottos

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Mary Ann Stoker 1894
« Reply #16 on: Friday 29 April 16 21:37 BST (UK) »
the Mary A stoker possible death 29 June 1924 10a552 sounds promising. Can I view that somehow to see who the parents were? I didn't understand the bit about Meggie being from a first marriage? As far as I was aware her mother was Jane Joanna Stoker 1860-1910? How can you tell if they Jane Joanna and William divorced?

Offline giggsycat

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 846
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Mary Ann Stoker 1894
« Reply #17 on: Friday 29 April 16 21:38 BST (UK) »
 :'( :'( :'(

Looking at wrong Jane. (the daughter).

They may have lost children in between Jane and Meggie.