> > In 1873 their daughter Bridget married and on the certificate it said that > John was a stoker.(so still alive at the time) This is not necessarily so. When someone married and was asked the name of his or her father, most people gave the name (if known). It doesn't prove he was alive, since the name remains a fact even when the person dies. The vicar would not necessarily pursue the matter and say, 'oh' is he dead or alive?' unless the bride was in deep mourning, or she volunterered the information. Some couples did say 'oh, but he's dead' - and some were not necessarily telling the truth, since it could be inconvenient to suggest there was a father around who might object to an underage marriage, or, even if he didn't, would be required to give written or in person consent, when he was miles away and unable to write. So the existence of a name never proves the existence of a person. > > In 1886 their daughter Ellen was murdered at Curtis St. Marcus St. West Ham > and at the inquest Mary said that she was living at 18 Underwood St. > > Ellen's children went into Dr. Barnardos in 1888 and my grandmother, one of > the children told me that was because their grandmother had died. Not sure > if that was true or not as I haven't found her death. Could be a polite fiction for 'she didn't want to take on small children'. (The name Mary johnson/Johnston is not uncommon and she may have moved - or remarried. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society