Find Ancestors

Depending on where in Deptford She was born she may be registered in Greenwich Southwark or maybe Lewisham.

Maud (approximately pronounced "mawd" in English), is an Old German feminine given name meaning "powerful battler". It's a variant of the given name Matilda, and it's uncommon as a surname. The name's popularity in 19th century England is associated with Alfred Lord Tennyson's poem Maud

And it was not Maud P Baker as step daughter to Walter. and Mary.

My point is that there are too many maybes, She has a sister Sarah but WE will only know she has a sister if we have correctly identified Maud's birth and parents. So Susan is an assumption. And London is a big place.
What we really need to know is the exact wording on the marriage cert.

"The parish records are the London ones, on Ancestry. There's a christening for Sarah Baker in 1897."

Androo, could you really not give the details - date, parish, anything else there? (Sometimes it gives father's occupation ...)

I don't have UK deluxe access so I can't look it up -- and we shouldn't have to, when it's info you have.

I'm deeply impressed and grateful for the time and effort you're all putting into this search.

I wish, for all our sakes, that we had the answer. Well, maybe we do, but unless we know it's the answer, it's no use to us.

I've sent for Maud's death cert to see if it says 'Deptford' for place of birth. If it says something different, I'll report back.

Damn woman. Nobody even liked her, apparently.

Androo, some of this is just loony!

People didn't get divorced pre 1900.

But people did give their fathers' names when they married without saying "deceased", generally because they weren't expressly asked.

They also very definitely gave false names for fathers - whether because they had been given false info, or thought a stepfather was their father, or didn't know and made one up.


You're hypothesizing that Mary Baker, mother of Maud P, who married Walter Ring, had had a child with a Robert Baker to whom she was not married but whose surname she shared??

Listen, I'm a big fan of wild theories, but that one's off my chart! ;)


And - for goodness' sake! - I **ruled out** that Maud P Baker -- by giving her marriage -- in about the 4th post in this thread!!

Marriages Mar 1907
>> BAKER Maud Primrose Poplar 1c 878
ENRIGHT Monica Poplar 1c 878
Horlick Charles Henry Poplar 1c 878
O'Keeffe John Poplar 1c 878

There is *no other* Maud P Baker in the births index, and that Maud is with her Horlick husband in 1911, matching the Maud P Baker from the previous censuses.

I have spent many hours today looking for Robert Baker for you. There is not one that matches all your criteria somewhere. I usually find that when that happens I have taken a wrong turning somewhere. It may be a good idea to step back to the known documented facts and look again.

The parish records are the London ones, on Ancestry. There's a christening for Sarah Baker in 1897.

I'm convinced that Robert Baker existed because he's down on the marriage cert. But for no other reason.

f Robert Baker is Maud's father, and the Mary Baker who married Walter Ring is Maud's mother, it seems logical that Mary Baker would've had to divorce Robert Baker to get married to Walter Ring.

Unless, Robert Baker died (he likely didn't because he's on the marriage cert in 1907 and it doesn't say 'deceased'). But maybe he in fact was deceased... if so there will be a record and it will be before the marriage to Walter Ring.

Or (unlikely) Mary and Robert Baker weren't married and just happened to have the same surname.

"Tantalisingly, parish birth records show a Sarah Baker (Maud's sister?) with parents Robert and Charlotte in 1897"

Which parish records?

Could you copy what you have about her?

*If I could find some evidence that Mary was married to Robert Baker before she married Walter Ring, I'd be excited, but I haven't found that. For it all to fit, Mary would've had to divorce Robert Baker, then marry Ring.
*


Marriages Dec 1882 (>99%)
Baker Robert Greenwich 1d 1529
BARRY Frances Mary Greenwich 1d 1529
Neary Mary Teresa Greenwich 1d 1529
Shinnock James Greenwich 1d 1529

Another to consider

Births Mar 1887 (>99%)

Baker Sophia Maud Greenwich 1d 1011

"For it all to fit, Mary would've had to divorce Robert Baker, then marry Ring."

Remind me. Is this because you have proof of life for Robert Baker at some point that would mean Mary could not have married as a widow?

Divorce is unlikely in the extreme, of course.


Marriages Mar 1892
Baker Mary St. Saviour 1d 307
Ring Walter William St. Saviour 1d 307


In the 1891 census, someone has corrected the surname of a brother of Walter in Deptford in this household:

Eliza King 48
Alfred King 26
James King 22
Walter King 20


You could always try contacting that person to see whether they know anything about Walter's family.

Thanks LadyKira. I have looked at that connection because it's Deptford. It's an interesting one for sure, and I've thought hard about it. I found Mary's marriage to Walter Ring and she was a Baker.

If I could find some evidence that Mary was married to Robert Baker before she married Walter Ring, I'd be excited, but I haven't found that. For it all to fit, Mary would've had to divorce Robert Baker, then marry Ring.

Then there's the problem of Maud's sister Sarah. She would then be Sarah Ring. There are a couple, but I can't make one look partcularly likely.

Have you looked at this one?

1901 census -
Address: 44, Azof Street, Greenwich
RING, Walter Wm Head Married M 32 1869 Gas Workers Labourer
Deptford
London
RING, Mary Wife Married F 40 1861
Southwark
London
RING, Walter Son Single M 8 1893
Southwark
London
RING, George Son Single M 4 1897
Deptford
London
BAKER, Maud Step Daughter Single F 15 1886
Deptford
London

Not quite done ...


1891

Name: Maud Ethel Baker
Age: 4
Estimated birth year: abt 1887
Relation: Daughter
Father's Name: Henry
Mother's Name: Maryann
Where born: Bromley, Kent, England

Civil parish: Bromley
Town: Bromley
County/Island: Kent
Registration district: Bromley

Henry Baker 51
Maryann Baker 45
Albert Baker 23
Edgar Wm Baker 18
Elizabeth Baker 15
Sydney Harry Baker 12
Harold Baker 9
Maud Ethel Baker 4


Henry's occupation is: Hy Driver. Hackney driver. Cab driver.

(Ah, it could be Fly Driver -- that's how Ancestry has it in 1881.)

Brother Edward was an Ostler / groom.

Hmm.

Did the couple really have a 4-yr-old or was she a granddaughter?


Births Mar 1887
Baker Maud Ethel I Bromley 2a 4_0

Too many names, a year older ... but no marriage or death for a Maud Ethel Baker or Maud E.I.


Household in 1901:

Mary A Baker 54
Albert Baker 33
Elizabeth Baker 25
Sydney Baker 22
Harold Baker 19
Maud Baker 14
John Irvine 68


That Maud was 7 when that Henry died:

Deaths Mar 1894
Baker Henry 52 Bromley 2a 295

so it might not be surprising if she didn't know her father's name 13 years later.

>Androo, have you viewed the 1911 image to verify that it does say Deptford for place of birth?

Yes I have. It says 'Deptford, County of Kent'. Seems very specific and definite. But Joseph signed the census so maybe he just got it wrong.

But I think you're right Janey that Maud's parents weren't married or something else that makes her invisible.

You've put in a sterling effort here and given me one or two extra things to think about.

Thanks to you and everyone else.

So ... tried searching 1881 for a Rob* Baker who was a driver.


Name: James Robt. Baker
Age: 34
Estimated birth year: abt 1847
Relation: Head
Spouse's name: Emma
Where born: Clerkenwell, Middlesex, England

Civil parish: St George Martyr
County/Island: London
Registration district: Holborn

>> Occupation: Cab Driver

James Robt. Baker 34
Emma Baker 33
James Henry Baker 11
Oswald Edwd. Baker 2


In 1891, all I'm seeing so far is a possible James Baker in the Edmonton Union Workhouse ...


Marriages Sep 1867
BAKER James Robert Edmonton 3a 248
HOPKINS Emma Edmonton 3a 248


The inclusion of a middle name in a census return is very often an indication that the person went by that name.

And this brings us back to the well-known possibilities ...

Maud's parents weren't married.
Her mother was a Baker and she was registered as Baker.
Her father was a Baker and she was registered in her mother's name.
Neither her father nor her mother was a Baker, but her mother subsequently married a Baker.
Her father was a Robert but not a Baker.
Her stepfather was a Robert but not a Baker, or a Baker but not a Robert.
Her father was a cab driver, or her stepfather was a cab driver ... or her grandfather was a cab driver ...
All of the above if Maud was the child of her mother's first marriage and her mother subsequently married a Baker ... or was married first to a Baker and subsequently married someone else, making Maud invisible in the censuses ...

And that sort of thing was my suspicion all along, given how common those situations really were.

I think yours is the wrong one, Staffslass, because -- just like mine -- she was still single in 1911. ;)

Yours also married Hussey and died as Hussey. I'm not going to bother figuring out whom mine married and when/where she died, since I've now got her in 1911 and she ain't ours!

Dang, and I liked her so much for the job.