Tweet
May I have your ideas please? This couple appear to have vanished without trace in the record after Samuel registered the birth of baby William on 27 July 1900. I have checked for possible deaths for Eliza betwen June 1900 and March 1901, but didn’t find a likely entry.
What I have is:
1. The marriage cert. of Samuel Stokes, bachelor, aged 19, labourer, of 24 Canrobert Street, Bethnal Green (father Samuel Stokes, turner), and Eliza Harrison, spinster, aged 18, of 26 Canrobert Street, Bethnal Green (father John Harrison, boot finisher) on June 2 1884, at the Parish Church of St Jude, Bethnal Green.
2. This family on the 1891 census, RG12/282/67/20, resident 7 Minto Place, Bethnal Green.:
head Samuel Stokes, age 28, bricklayer, born Bethnal Green
wife Eliza do. age 25, born Hackney
son Samuel do. age 6, born Bethnal Green
son John do. age 4, born Hackney Rd. [one side of which is in Bethnal Green]
daughter Eliza do. age 2, born do.
3. The birth cert of William Stokes, born 18 June 1900 at 22 Satchwell Street, Bethnal Green, mother Eliza Stokes formerly Harrison, father Samuel Stokes, builder’s labourer, birth registered by S. Stokes, father, of same address, on 27 July 1900.
4. This family on the 1901 census, all born in Bethnal Green, RG13/284/33/58, resident 22 Emma Street, Bethnal Green:
head H Stokes, age 42, bricklayer
[Possible birth Henry Stokes Jun 1859 Bethnal Green 1c252, cert not seen]
wife Jane do. age 37
son Samuel do. age 16, French polisher
son John do. age 14 Errand boy
daughter Eliza do. age 12
daughter Elizabeth do. age 6
daughter Florence do. age 3
son William do. age 9 months
5. Just to confuse things, there is a Henry Stokes married to Jane, both born and living in Bethnal Green, who appear in both the 1891 and the 1901 census with their children, but he was a tea warehouseman and she a fancy box maker. However, I have not been able to find another H Stokes in the 1891 census who might be the 1901 head of family!
It looks from the 1901 census as though the children, including the baby, were then in the care of a slightly older couple most likely related to Samuel - too many coincidences to be otherwise, surely? Unless the parents had changed their first names and added a bit to their ages, but why would they do that?
This information Crown Copyright, from The National Archives of the United Kingdom
What I have is:
1. The marriage cert. of Samuel Stokes, bachelor, aged 19, labourer, of 24 Canrobert Street, Bethnal Green (father Samuel Stokes, turner), and Eliza Harrison, spinster, aged 18, of 26 Canrobert Street, Bethnal Green (father John Harrison, boot finisher) on June 2 1884, at the Parish Church of St Jude, Bethnal Green.
2. This family on the 1891 census, RG12/282/67/20, resident 7 Minto Place, Bethnal Green.:
head Samuel Stokes, age 28, bricklayer, born Bethnal Green
wife Eliza do. age 25, born Hackney
son Samuel do. age 6, born Bethnal Green
son John do. age 4, born Hackney Rd. [one side of which is in Bethnal Green]
daughter Eliza do. age 2, born do.
3. The birth cert of William Stokes, born 18 June 1900 at 22 Satchwell Street, Bethnal Green, mother Eliza Stokes formerly Harrison, father Samuel Stokes, builder’s labourer, birth registered by S. Stokes, father, of same address, on 27 July 1900.
4. This family on the 1901 census, all born in Bethnal Green, RG13/284/33/58, resident 22 Emma Street, Bethnal Green:
head H Stokes, age 42, bricklayer
[Possible birth Henry Stokes Jun 1859 Bethnal Green 1c252, cert not seen]
wife Jane do. age 37
son Samuel do. age 16, French polisher
son John do. age 14 Errand boy
daughter Eliza do. age 12
daughter Elizabeth do. age 6
daughter Florence do. age 3
son William do. age 9 months
5. Just to confuse things, there is a Henry Stokes married to Jane, both born and living in Bethnal Green, who appear in both the 1891 and the 1901 census with their children, but he was a tea warehouseman and she a fancy box maker. However, I have not been able to find another H Stokes in the 1891 census who might be the 1901 head of family!
It looks from the 1901 census as though the children, including the baby, were then in the care of a slightly older couple most likely related to Samuel - too many coincidences to be otherwise, surely? Unless the parents had changed their first names and added a bit to their ages, but why would they do that?
This information Crown Copyright, from The National Archives of the United Kingdom
Comment