Apologies for the long post. I'm hoping that a fresh set of eyes can look at the logic and deductions I made, see which parts make sense, and/or find records that I overlooked after being buried in this for so long.
I have confirmed George BAKER's daughter, my ancestor Mary Ann Elizabeth BAKER (1873-1953), who married Joseph RUSS on 29 May 1909 in Bham, St Martin. Everything in her record lines up in a way that makes sense, and have me fairly confident that I have found the correct George BAKER out of several who lived in Birmingham at that time. It's once I start looking at all the pieces for George BAKER that things don't make sense for him.
= Strong confirmation with other records
= Weaker confirmation with other records
= It might make sense, but there is room for interpretation or errorRelevant Facts/Sources about Mary Ann Elizabeth BAKER:
1909 Parish Marriage Record:
* 43yo Joseph RUSS (Bachelor) & 36yo Mary Ann Elizabeth BAKER (Spinster)
* Married 29 May 1909 in Bham St Martin
* Mary Ann's father: George BAKER - Tool Maker
* Mary Ann's residence at time of marriage: 21 Meriden St
* One of the witnesses: Rose Hannah BAKER (Mary Ann's sister)
1873 Parish Baptism Record:
* Mary Ann Elizabeth BAKER
* Baptized to George & Elizabeth Ellen, who lived on Meriden St
* George - Gun Filer
It's reasonable that her father George BAKER was a gun filer in 1873, and by 1909 was a general tool maker - especially since I was able to use Birmingham Electoral Registers to confirm that George BAKER lived at 2 House, 2 Court Meriden St every year between when he married in 1871 to 1909 (relocating in 1910 to Cattell Rd).1873 GRO Birth Registration:
* Mary Ann Elizabeth BAKER
* Born 25 Mar 1873, registered 1 May 1873 in Bham.
* Father: George BAKER - Gun Action Filer
* Mother: Elizabeth Ellen BAKER née LINES
* Residence: 2 Court Meriden St
Relevant Facts/Sources about George BAKER:
A 27yo Ironfounder in 1871 could become a gun filer by 1873. The fact that George isn't listed at Meriden St is a bit odd, once we look at the census records.1909 Parish Marriage Record:
* 27yo George BAKER (Bachelor) & 21yo Elizabeth Eliza LINES (Spinster)
* Married 2 Apr 1871 (census day!) in Bham St Philip
* George was an Iron Founder
* George was living on... Congreve St
* George's father: George BAKER Senior, Fender Maker
* Elizabeth Ellens: Lived on Little Charles St
* Elizabeth Ellen's father: George LINES, fruiterer
It took me a while to figure out the census records for George, even with the confirmation that he lived at 2 Court 2 Meriden St from 1971-1909. I ended up needing to follow two other families to track everything over the decades, and typed up the census records into Google Sheets so I could track all the Eliza's and Elizabeth's. Here is the link, in case anyone finds it useful, with color-coding to track certain individuals: Census Info on Google Docs
One important note right now is that none of the census records list George Senior as the father of George Junior. But I can't find another George BAKER + Elizabeth Ellen LINES marriage, and Mary Ann Elizabeth BAKER's birth registration makes her mother's name undisputable. ...Unless the Mary Ann Elizabeth Baker who lived at 21 Meriden St is completely unrelated to the George BAKER who spent decades living on 2 Court 2 Meriden St with a daughter named Mary Ann?
Census Info Highlights:
Everything here checks out at first. We even see Rose Hannah, one of the witnesses listed for Mary Ann Elizabeth's marriage. It's when we get to Charlotte that things get weird, when compared with other census records. Charlotte is listed as mother of George BAKER, which is odd. Many ancestry trees list George's parents as George BAKER and Emma BENNETT, not a Charlotte. I can't find any George Sr. BAKER to Charlotte WALTON/??? marriages, nor any baptisms for George Jr. with a mother Charlotte.1881 Census
Address: 2, Court 2 Meriden St - St Martin
* George BAKER
* Elizabeth (do.) [Wife]
* children, including Mary Ann and Rose [H]A[annah]
* Charlotte WALTON - 63yo Mother
I tried seeing if Elizabeth Eliza BAKER née LINES could have had a mother Charlotte, in case "mother" should have been "mother in law", but no George LINES to Charlotte marriages and no baptisms with Charlotte as mother to Elizabeth Eliza.
Okay, let's see what other census records say.
---
George's last name is listed as BAKER, not (do). George is listed as son-in-law to William WALTON, so maybe he is William's step-son/Charlotte's biological son?1871 Census
Address: Court 2 Meriden St - St Martin
* William WALTON - 57yo Head, Labourer
* Charlotte (do) - 56yo Wife
* George BAKER- 27yo son-in-law
, ironfounder
* Eliza (do.) - 22yo daur, Burnisher
* 15yo niece Eliza STYCH
* 7yo niece Elizabeth STYCH
[George's future wife, 22yo Elizabeth E. LINES was with her mother and brothers preparing for their wedding later that day]
At first I thought that 22yo Eliza listed directly under George, with (do.) as her last name meant she was also BAKER, and that this was Elizabeth Eliza with the census being taken after their marriage that day. However, I found Elizabeth Eliza with her mother and brothers on the 1871 census, and George's 1861 census shows a sibling by the name of Eliza that is the same age or a year older than Elizabeth Eliza.
---
* Firstly, I found Meriden Street in the 1861 census, and there are no WALTONs or BAKERs that lived at any house on 2 Court Meriden Street. 4 Meeting House Yard lines up with the STYCH family living at 3 Meeting House Yard, with STYCH family members that appear in George BAKER's 1871 and 1881 censuses.1861 Census
Address: 4 Meeting House Yard - Deritend
* William WALTON - 44yo Head, Gardener
* Charlotte (do) - 44yo Wife
* George BAKER
* Thomas (do.) - 15yo son, brass chandelier trade
* Eliza (do.)- 12yo daur
[George's future wife, 22yo Elizabeth E. LINES was with her mother and brothers preparing for their wedding later that day]
* William WALTON could go from a gardener to general labourer, or labourer in 1871 could be an error. I should also mention that both 1861 and 1871 censues list his birthplace as Yardley, WORC/WARW - unlike everyone else born just in "Bham".
* George BAKER is now listed once again as a son, not son-in-law! I strongly wonder if in 1871 the status of SIL is an error, with the census-taker hearing about the wedding that day, and assuming that George having a different last name means that he married into the family? (And the census taker also assumed that 22yo Eliza [do./"BAKER"] was his wife, when she seems to be his sister?)
* I assume that there aren't many differences in brassfoundry and ironfoundry, so the slight change in occupation seems fine.
* George's sister (Eliza BAKER?) is listed as a tin plate worker. It seems reasonable that a decade later, she was a Burnisher (which seems to be someone who polished metal - [url=source]https://www.familyresearcher.co.uk/glos ... ng-B8.html[/source]).
Relevant Facts/Sources about William & Charlotte WALTON:
Charlotte doesn't appear with William until the 1861 census, so the time of their marriage checks out.1858 Parish Marriage Record:
* Adult William "WHATTON"
* Married 19 Dec 1858 in Bham St Martin
* William "WHATTON": Brick maker
* William's father: John "WHATTON", Labourer
I know that illegitimate children often took their mother's surname. Does it seem reasonable that William WHATTON had at least 3 children (George, Thomas, and Eliza) with Charlotte BAKER while William was married with children to another woman, and after his first wife's death he decides to marry his... "paramour" Charlotte? 1851 census makes me a little uncertain, but first let's see William's first wife. William going from Brick Maker three years before being a Gardener at '44' to general Labourer at '57' also seems a bit odd.
All I can find for a first marriage for William doesn't seem to fully line up with information about William in his second marriage...
William going from Japanner (leather lacquerer) in 1842 + 1851 census below, to a brick-maker in 1858, to gardener in 1861 and labourer in 1871 doesn't make sense to me.1842 Parish Marriage Record:
* Adult William "WATTON"
* Married 19 Dec 1858 in Bham St Martin
* William "WATTON": Japanner
* William's father: William "WATTON", Brassfounder
This census implies that William that 8 children born from his marriage with Ann. Perhaps the census taker was not told that some of his children were "illegitimate", and so assumed they had WALTON as a last name?1851 Census
Address: Ct 5, Upper Windsor St - Duddeston, Aston
* William WALTON - 35yo Head, Jappanner
* Ann (do.) - 35yo Wife
* William (do.) - 13yo son
* Samuel (do.) - 11yo son
* George (do.)
* Joseph (do.)
* Henry (do.)
* Benjamin (do.)
* Elizabeth
* Alfred
George's age general matches. Thomas BAKER would have been around 5, so maybe he went by Benjamin? And perhaps Eliza, 12yo in 1861, was born with the Christian name of Elizabeth which was still being used in 1851? I suppose Alfred died before 1861, and Henry had already moved out in 1861.
This destroys my theory of George BAKER being Charlotte's bio-son and William WALTON's stepson. I suppose William WALTON could have adopted several BAKER children when their parents died, who the census-taker mistakenly wrote (do.)/"WALTON" down for.
But then, why does George BAKER and Elizabeth Ellen LINES' marriage record list George BAKER Senior as George's father? George's daughter Mary Ann Elizabeth BAKER makes it clear who her mother is, and I haven't found a different George BAKER & Elizabeth Ellen LINES marriage. Is the Meriden St link (Mary Ann Elizabeth BAKER living at 21 Meriden St, and George BAKER living for decades at 2 Court 2 Meriden St) a coincendence between two unrelated BAKERs???
My worst fear is that maybe William WALTON's (step? adopted?) son George BAKER is a completely different person from the George BAKER who married Elizabeth Ellen LINES, and who decided to live in the exact same house (based on the presence of the STYCH relatives when William WALTON was head of house in 1871, and then when a George BAKER was head in 1881).
...That reminds me. Speaking of the 1881 census, where George is a Gun Filer (matching his marriage record) before he later becomes a Tool Maker... for the people on Ancestry who have a George BAKER Jr, to parents George BAKER Sr + Emma BENNETT in their trees, George BAKER Sr was also a gun filer per census records and Jr's baptism records. But it seems implausible to me that William WALTON would have some sort of 'son' George BAKER and a niece Eliza STYCH in a house at 2 Court Meriden St in 1871, and then a different George BAKER moves into the residence in 1881 while letting the widowed mother and her nieces still stay in that house. Those Ancestry trees typically have George Senior living until 1910 and Emma until 1897, or at least tracking censuses through 1871, so they wouldn't fit a theory of dying prior to 1851 with William WALTON adopting some of their underage children.
I greatly appreciate any help in untangling this conundrum that I've found myself in!
---
ETA: I figured out the (Corigreoc? Cougreoc? Congreoc?) street confusion from George's marriage record; he lives on Congreve St!
And since Charlotte seems to have died before the next census, I had no clue that I was missing her!
