Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

50Re: [stooke] Descendant of William Stooke, York House, Clifton, Bristol

Expand Messages
  • Martin Beavis
    Mar 23 12:24 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Marilyn
      Glad it was helpful.  I see you have trimmed your Ancestry trees back to what is proven.  I still believe the parents of William STOOKE were  the as-yet unproven Edward STOOKE and Mary BEST.  And I believe Steve’s previous attachment EStookeDesc1.pdf is correct.
      Yes, please do send me the Trusham baptisms from Daniel Morgan.  Are they more detailed than those at http://www.trusham.com/Census data/Census menu.htm ?
      I think the Dawlish parish records are only available for inspection at Exeter and Barnstaple but Steve has received some from local sources, as posted earlier in this group.  There definitely was at least one other James STOOKE in Dawlish apart from the supposed brothers Edward and James.  The problem is working out which children (legitimate or otherwise) were born to which parents, and which of them died young before marriage.
      I’m still working on Dawlish but drifting sideways.
      Kind regards
      Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:59 AM
      Subject: Re: [stooke] Descendant of William Stooke, York House, Clifton, Bristol

      Hello Martin

      Thank you very much for all the new info below. It is great to hear from you.  I can now update my ancestry family tree (you’re right, I am the bodenfamily1!).
      I find it fascinating and love learning about our ancestors and how, when and where they lived.  It’s amazing just how far they travelled in their lives, given the nature of public transport in those days:  from Dawlish to Bristol, to London, Kent and Suffolk.
      I came to a grinding halt after William Stooke.  I recently emailed Daniel Morgan who kindly sent me baptisms of the Stookes of Trusham.   If you haven’t already got this info and Can forward his email on to you.  He also overseas Ashton parish records.
      Dawlish parish records have got me stumped!  Have no idea where to go to research.  There are so many Stookes!
      Thank you again
      Best wishes
      On 4 Mar 2014, at 01:33, beavis.history <beavis.history@...> wrote:

      Hello Marilyn and welcome
      I'm guessing you are "bodenfamily1" who uploaded the Stooke family tree on Ancestry, which I discovered while researching the children of the Bristol hotel keeper William Stooke.  It seems very well researched with plenty of credible sources - I like that!
      I googled your pharmacist grandfather Frederick Arthur Stooke in the hope of finding a professional qualification and discovered from this 1919 Register that both he and his father Arthur were registered chemists:
      Date of registration = 1869 July 16, STOOKE Arthur, 166 High Street, Gillingham, Kent, Qualification = Chemist and Druggist
      Date of registration = 1903 Jan 12, Frederick Arthur STOOKE, 7 Station Parade, Sanderstead, South Croydon, Qualification = Pharmaceutical Chemist
      the difference in qualification being, I believe, that the son had passed a higher examination.
      I also searched the London Gazette, often good for a bankruptcy or legal wrangle - no such dirt this time, but I did find that the partnership trading as Bevan and Stooke was dissolved in 1930:
      It gets better - you probably know this but father and son were both opticians as well. I also searched for Frederick Arthur STOOKE in Ancestry's Professional Directories collection and discovered his Admission Papers for the Freedom of the City of London.  Inspection of three consecutive pages of the facsimile image, dated 14 May 1907, reveals that Frederick Arthur STOOKE, optician of 166 High Street, Gillingham, Kent, son of Arthur STOOKE, optician, of the same address, was granted that Freedom as a member of the Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers.  His Probate record identifies your uncle, Arthur Geoffrey Berrett STOOKE, ophthalmic optician, as executor – so you have three generations of opticians.  A good respectable profession - I should think so, two of my sons are optometrists (to use the modern term).
      Turning to your tree, there is no 1901 census record for Frederick Arthur STOOKE but he turns up in Lewisham as Frederick Stook, Chemist's Assistant, in the household of his widower uncle Frederick STOOKE (toy manufacturer's agent), together with Frederick's daughter Celia and Frederick Arthur's brother Arnold (bank clerk).
      Your 1901 census for Great Waltham finds the wrong Arthur and Emma STOOKE, listing his occupation as "on sick club" and hers as "washing charwoman"!  Alternatively, Arthur (age 53) is still living in Gillingham, practising as a Dental Surgeon and Chemist, but with the "wrong" wife, Canadian-born Ellen J STOOKE (54), for which there is an unexpected explanation:
      FreeBMD  Death Q4 1897  Emma Willett Stooke age 53 in Elham (Kent) RD
      FreeBMD  Marriage Q3 1900 Arthur Stooke & Ellen Jane Leitch in Medway RD
      I'm guessing Ellen Jane was probably a widow, or possibly divorced, but that marriage did not last very long:
      FreeBMD  Death Q1 1908  Ellen Jane STOOKE age 60 in Medway RD
      In the 1911 census, the twice-widowed Arthur (63) is still living in Gillingham as a Chemist and Stationer with a daughter Amy who works on the Stationery side of the business.
      Finally, I'm not quite sure about your greatgrandfather Arthur - dispensing potions andtesting eyes and pulling teeth!  Or perhaps that's just social history as it was in those days.
      I'm still working on the extended Stooke family in Bristol but in the meantime I agree with Steve's attribution of Edward STOOKE and Mary BEST as the best-fit parents of William STOOKE.
      Regards - Martin Beavis
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic