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

Sarah CHALK

Postby SDV » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:54 am

I am trying to trace the death of my 4x GGM, Sarah CHALK, née COLE.

I know that she married William CHALK on 17 Jun 1800 at Stow Maries in Essex. I also know that William died in early 1827, being buried aged 45 on 04 Feb 1827 at Stow Marries.

I have a possible baptism for Sarah in 1783 at Stow Marries. Unfortunately the register is torn. All that can be seen is that her parents were Jno and Mar**.

I know she was definitely alive in 1826, as that was when her last child with William was born, Ellen CHALK.

I have found a possible second marriage to Samuel STOKES on 16 Jun 1834 at Purleigh, where he is a bachelor and Sarah a widow. The witnesses mean nothing to me.

Assuming that this marriage is correct, I looked for the couple in 1841 but couldn't find them. There is a Samuel Stokes (45) living in the correct area with an Elizabeth STOKES (55) and a James CHALK (15). No Sarah, though the presence of James CHALK does give some substance to a link. This James can't be the son who was born in 1822, as he died after only a few weeks in 1822. I suppose it could be the other son called James who was born in 1823. I have not found him in 1841, though he would have been 18, not 15. [HO107 327 22 23 7]

As for possible deaths, there is a possible for Samuel:

Q3 1853 Maldon 4a 97 [77] - thus b1776

And one for Sarah STOKES:

Q2 1847 Maldon 12 128 [64] - thus born 1783.

The death for Sarah looks right, but where was she in 1841?
SDV
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:47 pm

Re: Sarah CHALK

Postby avaline » Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:55 am

[This James can't be the son who was born in 1822, as he died after only a few weeks in 1822. I suppose it could be the other son called James who was born in 1823. I have not found him in 1841, though he would have been 18, not 15. [HO107 327 22 23 7]]

Don't forget that ages were rounded down to the nearest 5 in 1841
avaline
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:47 pm

Re: Sarah CHALK

Postby SDV » Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:16 am

I thought that was only for adults. Would he have been old enough to have been rounded down?
SDV
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:47 pm

Re: Sarah CHALK

Postby ianbee » Fri Jul 12, 2019 12:55 pm

SDV wrote:As for possible deaths, there is a possible for Samuel:

Q3 1853 Maldon 4a 97 [77] - thus b1776

And one for Sarah STOKES:

Q2 1847 Maldon 12 128 [64] - thus born 1783.

Problems at the moment with the new Essex indexes site (that's ancestry!)
But, anyway, a burial at Stow Maries of Sarah Stokes in 1847.
BT on familysearch. It's the faintest of faint images, but it looks like it might be on the 16th May. Age 64
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903 ... cat=518925

Burial of Samuel is a bit better, 24 July 1853, at Stow, age 77
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903 ... cat=518925
ianbee
 
Posts: 2289
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Sarah CHALK

Postby ianbee » Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:27 pm

The marriage at Purleigh, 16 June 1834
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903 ... cat=515682

Witnesses Joseph Harrington, Elizabeth Harrington.
An Elizabeth Harrington also witnessed the first marriage of the year, in January.
Then on the 30 September 1834 Elizabeth Harrington married Henry Stokes! Next image.
ianbee
 
Posts: 2289
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Sarah CHALK

Postby Mick Loney » Fri Jul 12, 2019 1:42 pm

SDV wrote:I thought that was only for adults. Would he have been old enough to have been rounded down?


‘Children’ in this context was anyone aged 15 or under. Anyone older should have their age rounded down. But this didn’t always happen.
So an 18 year old should be shown as 15 :D
Mick Loney
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:39 am

Re: Sarah CHALK

Postby SDV » Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:33 pm

Many thanks for the help and clarification.

I currently have a SEAX subscription and the various marriages and burials are much clearer on there, once you know where to look as of course the site isn't indexed!

The burial was 16 May 1847.

I am now reasonably sure that Sarah CHALK married Samuel STOKES in 1834 at Purleigh. I am also convinced that the James CHALK living with Samuel in 1841 was Sarah's son James, who was born in 1823 and went on to marry Susan Farrow.

So just a couple of things to clarify with regard to the 1841 census return:

(1) is the suggestion that the Elizabeth (55) is the one who married Henry Stokes, so Samuel's sister-in-law?
(2) Sarah should still be alive if she died in 1847, so why isn't she recorded?

Finding Sarah in 1841 would round things off nicely.
SDV
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:47 pm

Re: Sarah CHALK

Postby ianbee » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:00 pm

Or perhaps in 1841 Sarah was recorded as Elizabeth in error? Sometimes happens!
ianbee
 
Posts: 2289
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: Sarah CHALK

Postby SDV » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:01 pm

One more thought. The Samuel STOKES found in the 1841C was recorded as 45, so was presumably born in the early 1790s. Yet the one in the 1851C was aged 75 and the one who died in 1853 was 77, both suggesting a birth in 1776. Are these the same person?
SDV
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:47 pm

Re: Sarah CHALK

Postby avaline » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:11 pm

SDV wrote:So just a couple of things to clarify with regard to the 1841 census return:

(1) is the suggestion that the Elizabeth (55) is the one who married Henry Stokes, so Samuel's sister-in-law?
(2) Sarah should still be alive if she died in 1847, so why isn't she recorded?

Finding Sarah in 1841 would round things off nicely.


I think Henry & Elizabeth are at Lee Howe, Purleigh in 1841, with children including Henry aged 3 and Sarah Ann aged 1:

STOKES, HENRY mmn HARRINGTON GRO Ref: 1838 M Quarter in MALDON Vol 12 P 142
STOKES, SARAH mmn HARRINGTON GRO Ref: 1840 J Quarter in MALDON Vol 12 P 142

There is also an Emma, aged 10, and there is a baptism 27 Nov 1831 at Purleigh, All Saints for Emma Harrington d/o Elizabeth.

Bearing in mind that the census we see is not the original household return but one that has been copied over by the enumerator, there's more than a reasonable chance that the name 'Elizabeth' has simply been recorded in error.
avaline
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:47 pm

Next

Return to General research queries


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests