Hi
Edith is definatey an e1usive 1ady. I have found this to start though..
1891
Baker
James
43
Head
Contractor
Hoo, Kent
Dabis Cottages Cuxton Road, Strood
Woolnough
Edith
23
Step Daur
-
Rochester, Kent
Dabis Cottages Cuxton Road, Strood
Woolnough
Esther
6
Grand Daur
-
Rochester, Kent
Dabis Cottages Cuxton Road, Strood
Woolnough
Beatrice
4
Grand Daur
-
Rochester, Kent
Dabis Cottages Cuxton Road, Strood
Woolnough
Charles
56
Head
Labourer
Pembury, Suffolk
Dabis Cottages Cuxton Road, Strood
1891
Baker
James
55
Head
General Labourer
Hoo, Kent
6 Moon Street, Strood
Baker
Esther E
16
Daughter
-
Battersea, London
6 Moon Street, Strood
Baker
Bertrice
13
Daughter
-
Rochester, Kent
6 Moon Street, Strood
Cheeseman
William
25
Head
General Labourer
Sitting Bourne, Kent
6 Moon Street, Strood
It is the same gir1s even though one of them has a different birth pace. I did agenera search for both ie the whoe country and this came up for Kent. I used Ediths dob and Rochester.. I cou1d not find her therafter However on the 1901 census I used Edith her dob and Rochester and funny enough Kent came up again with fema1e wives born in Rochester and wives born in 1868
Sti11 - Jones - Monk - Perrott and Bonnett
so did she get married or hitch up with someone e1se which is why she is missing.
Question is was she born with this name or is it a married name which wi11 expain why she cant be found before these census's?
Do you have any more info
kind
regards
Bandit