Moderator Control Panel ]

Sarah CHALK

A problem shared is a problem halved. Post your brick walls here and see whether you can offer advice to others

Re: Sarah CHALK

Postby SDV » Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:23 pm

I agree that it is quite possible that Elizabeth has been recorded in error.

I'm more concerned about the age discrepancy. We have no idea how old Samuel was when he married Sarah in 1834. She would have been 51.

If we accept that Samuel died in 1853 aged 77, then he would have been 58 rather than 45. Rather old given that this was his first marriage.

I think that the presence of James Chalk goes some way towards proving that the Samuel Stokes appearing in the 1841 census is the one that married Sarah. I'm am no longer so convinced that the one in 1851(HO107 1778 325 11) and the one that died in 1853 are her second husband.
SDV
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:47 pm

Re: Sarah CHALK

Postby ianbee » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:19 pm

There seem to be only two relevant deaths of Samuel Stokes in the GRO indexes
The one mentioned already in 1853, buried Stow Maries, age 77
He possibly could be the Samuel Stokes in Stow in 1841, age a rounded 55. Piece 327 book 25 folio 6 page 7
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MQ2N-DQH

And boarding with John and Elizabeth Stokes in Stow in 1851, age 75. He's on piece 1778 folio 325 page 11
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SGV4-S4G

The other death is in Dec qtr 1869, Maldon, Samuel Stokes, age 67. Buried in Stow Maries, according to ancestry (no BT available)
Could he be the widowed ag lab, a lodger in Stow in 1851, age 47? Piece 1778 folio 321 page 2
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SGV4-3FV

And still in Stow in 1861, age 57. Piece 1089 folio 72 page 8
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M74G-CDD

As I am not sure that he can be found in Stow in 1841, then he looks quite likely to be the Samuel in Purleigh, with Elizabeth (who may or may not really be Sarah)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M74G-CDD

With no earlier death of a Sarah in Purleigh or Stow, you now have a tricky situation. You could of course try for the 1847 death cert/pdf. At least there is no sign of a death/burial of an Elizabeth in the area, 1841-1851.
A James Chalk is in Stow in 1851, may have married in Purleigh same year. Is that the same James?
ianbee
 
Posts: 2273
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Sarah CHALK

Postby SDV » Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:20 pm

Ian - several points.

1. James CHALK did marry Susan FARROW in Purleigh on 29 Nov 1851. He was Sarah's son and was born in 1823. So in 1851, he would have been 28. So it is unlikely that he is the James CHALK in Stow living with Samuel Stokes, Sarah Chalk and Edward Chalk. In fact, he would appear to be lodging with the BRIGHTs in Stow in 1851 [HO107 1778 327 15], marrying Susan later that year.

2. That being said, I actually find the second path that you map preferable, as the ages seem more realistic. I always suspected that it was likely that Samuel was younger than Sarah, since it was his first marriage. So we now have the following time scale:
1834 Samuel and Sarah marry in Purleigh
1841 Samuel (45) and Elizabeth/Sarah (55) living in Stow with Sarah's youngest son, James (b1823).
1847 Sarah Stokes dies in Stow, aged 64
1851 Samuel (47) - now a widower - lodging with the SCRUBYs in Stow
1861 Samuel (57) lodging with James (53), Sarah (47) and Edward (10) CHALK in Stow
1869 Samuel dies aged 67.

3. The above scenario is consistent with Elizabeth (55) in 1841C being Sarah, who in 1841 would have been 58, which rounds down to 55.

4. The Samuel (45) in 1841C must be the one that married Sarah in 1834, otherwise why is her son James living with them?

5. The 1851C and 1861C point to a birth for Samuel in in 1804, whilst his death would suggest 1802. It would therefore be good to locate a birth/baptism in the area in the 1800-1806 slot.

It is now past by bedtime so I am going to postpone any more thinking about this until tomorrow!

Positively the last post tonight - Samuel STOKES baptised in Stow on 07 Nov 1802, son of William and Mary STOKES. Could explain the two Williams.
SDV
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:47 pm

Previous

Return to General research queries


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron