I am hoping someone may help solve my mystery I have had since stating my family search and as it is a little quiet I thought some of you sleuths could help with a few suggestions. I have laid out all the notes that I have amassed which is the following, I know its a bit long but saves a lot of questions. What happened to Stephen Henry Newell Stephen Henry Newell was born on 26th February 1838 in Stedham, Sussex, the son of James Newell and Priscilla nee Weeks. Stephen married Mary Boxall on the 1st of January 1861 in Trotton, Sussex. In the 1861 Census RAG/145 Page 7 Schedule 35 he is living with his wife Mary in Garden House, Milland Lane, Trotton Sussex listed as a Grocer and Baker. In the 1871 Census RAG/825 Schedule 22 Page 23 Bramley, Surrey there is listed but now as Henry SO Newell born Stedham aged 37, this of course would make him a different age, but the similarities of being born in Stedham and being a baker would make it a high possibility of him being the same person. He is working and lodging as a Bread baker at 22 Rushet Common, Bramley, Surrey, whilst his wife and four children Mary Louisa born 1863 in Milland Sussex, Emily born 1866 Brighton, Harry (this is Henry my Grandfather) born 1868 Portsmouth, Hampshire and Alfred born 1870 in Brighton Sussex, are living at 77 Nightingale Road Farncombe, Surrey. Living with Mary was her brother Thomas Boxall. In the 1881 Census RAG/1066 Folio 78 Page 1 Stephen is again working and boarding away at St Johns College, Hurstpierpoint, Sussex as Head Baker and Domestic Servant whilst in the 1881 Census RAG/1143 Page 38 Schedule 183 his wife is now living with her children and two new additions, Eva born 1872 in Godalming Surrey and Kate born 1874 in Cranleigh Surrey. She is now listed as living at 18 Arnaud Street Portsea, Hampshire but she is strangely listed as being a seaman's wife. I have never found out why she listed him as a Merchant Seaman and have no way at the moment in finding out if he actually did join the merchant service. In the 1891 Census RG 12/870 Sched 49 Page 89 this occupation of her husband is repeated. Stephen is again not listed and there is no trace of him in the census. Mary is living alone with lodgers at 13 Durham Street Portsea where she is listed as still being married and a Merchant seaman's wife. In 1893 Stephen's son Henry married Sarah Elizabeth Waters on 1st April 1893 at St James Church Milton, Portsmouth and on their Marriage certificate his father was again listed as Henry Stephen Newell, occupation a Baker. By the 1901 Census RG13/1007 Schedule 239 Page 129 Mary is living at 42 Harold Road, Southsea listed as a widow, so our Stephen died somewhere between 1891 and 1901 but if he was alive at his sons wedding, and he could have been as there was no deceased by his name, then it would bring it down to between 1893 and 1901. There is no record of death for him in this period. Conclusion: It is highly likely that the Stephen Henry and Henry Stephen apart from one instance of age difference are the same person as he is always working away when Mary is alone with the children. Was there some reason why Mary listed him as a merchant seaman when it is obvious from the censuses that he was a baker, unless he joined the merchant service after the 1881 census, but then he was listed as a baker on his son's marriage certificate in 1893. Did he return to being a baker just prior to this? Stephens other children were married in 1890 and 1891 perhaps getting certificates for these would give some further clues.

Hi bob, Could it be that Stephen and his wife split up, she ended up living with someone who was a merchant seaman as if he was her husband? Divorce was out of the question for the majority back then. I've learned not to assume that someone is alive just because it doesn't state "deceased" on a certificate or baptism entry, as I've found numerous occasions where that thought has been disproved. All the best, Jon