I don't think this adds up. If Stephen was 12 in 1841 he must have been born
c1829 not 1839. Therefore he would have been born before the Stephen who
died in 1837.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: [ERY] Re bp Stephen ROEBUCK c1835-1837, Sculcoates?
On 1 Feb 2004 at 8:26, David Sharman wrote:
> I found the burial of a Stephen ROEBUCK, infant buried 7 May 1837 at All
> Saints St Mary's, Sculcoates. The abode given was Machel Street which is
> where my ROEBUCK family were living at this time. However, I know he
> doesn't belong to my Robert and Frances as they already had a son named
> Stephen. He is my great great grandfather and is with his mother at
> Machel Street on the 1841 census aged 12 years
Can you be sure about this? The first Stephen could have died as a baby
another son soon after so called him Stepen too. This happened a
The Stephen aged 12 years in 1841 means he was born in c1839 which could
being born within a suitable period after the death of the young
==== ENG-EAST-YORKS Mailing List ====
To contact the List Admin send mail to ,
Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
Collection with an Ancestry.com
free trial. Click to learn more.