gfcoker
18-11-2004, 9:34 AM
I am trying to find the 1861 whereabouts of Richard Coker, latterly a chimney sweep, born in Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire on 5 January 1841. On 7 July 1861 he married Mary Ann West. They both gave their addresses as St James Holloway, Islington, Middx.
Although they appear to have had five children between November 1861 and 1877 I have not as yet found them together in one place so it would be ironic if I found them together before they were married. Mary Ann was pregnant with their first child Henry at the time of the marriage as he was born 5 November 1861.
Mary Ann West was born in Bartholomew Terrace, Highgate but gives her birthplace in various censuses as Hornsey or Holloway.
To add to my confusion in 1881 I have found another Richard Coker apparently born in Aylesbury Buckinghamshire in 1841, also a chimney sweep, with a complete family. I have not been able to satisfy myself that this is a separate Richard Coker so I would also be interested if there are 2 20 year-old Richard Cokers, both born Buckinghamshire and both living in north London in the 1861 Census. Finding 2 would reduce the possibility that Richard Coker was a bigamist.
Kind regards, Graham
Although they appear to have had five children between November 1861 and 1877 I have not as yet found them together in one place so it would be ironic if I found them together before they were married. Mary Ann was pregnant with their first child Henry at the time of the marriage as he was born 5 November 1861.
Mary Ann West was born in Bartholomew Terrace, Highgate but gives her birthplace in various censuses as Hornsey or Holloway.
To add to my confusion in 1881 I have found another Richard Coker apparently born in Aylesbury Buckinghamshire in 1841, also a chimney sweep, with a complete family. I have not been able to satisfy myself that this is a separate Richard Coker so I would also be interested if there are 2 20 year-old Richard Cokers, both born Buckinghamshire and both living in north London in the 1861 Census. Finding 2 would reduce the possibility that Richard Coker was a bigamist.
Kind regards, Graham