- Eliza Stagg
- Given names
|Birth|| about 1825|
|Christening|| October 16, 1825|
|Marriage||Stephen Waters — View this family|
between January 1844 and March 1844 (Age 19 years)
| Birth of a son|
October 19, 1846 (Age 21 years)
| Birth of a son|
about 1855 (Age 30 years)
Note: Date of birth based on age 84 at death.
|Death of a husband||Stephen Waters|
between January 1858 and March 1858 (Age 33 years)
|Marriage of a child||Edwin Waters — Elizabeth Lovelock — View this family|
December 11, 1875 (Age 50 years)
|Death of a son||Edwin Waters|
December 22, 1915 (Age 90 years)
|Death of a son||John Waters|
between January 1939 and March 1939 (Age 114 years)
|Christening of a son||Edwin Waters|
|Family with Stephen Waters|
Birth: about 1816 — Little Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England
Death: between January 1858 and March 1858
Birth: about 1825
Marriage: between January 1844 and March 1844 —
Birth: October 19, 1846 30 21 — Little Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England
Death: December 22, 1915 — Little Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England
Birth: about 1855 39 30 — Little Bedwyn, Wiltshire, England
Death: between January 1939 and March 1939
Eliza Stagg possibly later remarried a Mr Wells (who died before 1881) since she appears as Eliza Wells in the 1881 and 1891 census, living with her son Edwin Waters and family.
Cf also: Graham Lovelock, email 21-Jun-05:
[...in] the 1881 Birch Copse entry: how is it that Eliza WELLS is quoted as the mother of Edwin? I hope it's just a simple (!) matter of her being widowed twice. Well, an Eliza Waters did marry a William Wells in the Hungerford RD in 1Q 1866, and a 77 year old William Wells died in the Hungerford RD in the self same quarter! Bad luck or what? Or am I on the wrong track, as she would have been only 38 or 39 in 1866. Such a disparity in ages would have caused the lifting of some eyebrows I should think.
There are a number of candidate deaths of a male Waters between Edwin's birth and 1866, one of whom - John Waters, died 4Q 1864 - could have married an Eliza Aldridge in 4Q 1838. Lastly, Edwin's age in 1901 should of course have been 54 not 53.