Re: The good ship Britannia
You caught me in a mistake!It's my first since the last one!Many times, when I have a chance, I do some catch-up genealogy work at the office.Unfortunately, a great deal of my research is at home.So, I just wing it from my memory!Of course, I think that it's infallible.
The mistake, obviously, was the date of Michael's arrival, which was September 11, 1731.Before I came across the ship's manifest, the story in the family was that Michael and his wife arrived in this country with some number of children - one, two, or three.This was also at a time before I had any dates of birth for any of his children.
Upon examination of the passenger list, I noted several things.
1) Although many females are listed, the name of Michael's wife, Anna Margaretha, does not appear there. I have no explanation for this.Perhaps one of our fellow Stockers does have a theory.I would like to hear it.
2) Although there are names of children on that list, there are no Stocker rugrats listed. At that point, I had assumed that they did not have any children yet.That did not seem to fit, however.The Mormon records reflect that George was born in 1733.Since I knew that he had, at least, a couple of older siblings, I figured that Anna must have been pregnant when they arrived in Philadelphia.Of course, I now know that they had two children prior to 1730 while still living in the Palatinate.Again, I have no explanation for why those two children (Michael, Jr. and Anna Maria) were not listed.
3)When I found Michael's name, with the help of the genealogy librarian, I remarked on the fact that it showed a middle initial of "M."She gave me a funny look and said, "That's not an 'M.' That's his mark.Your Michael was illiterate!"Of course, she was right that the "M" was his mark.However, my 3rd cousin, Adrian Stocker takes great issue with the opinion of illiteracy.He has visited Schauffhausen on numerous occasions and believes that the family was not only literate, but wealthy.If what he believes is true, I do not understand why it is that Michael did not write his own name that day.It would appear that many of the passengers did, some with very beautiful and elaborate handwriting.Just another mystery!
4)In one place in those records, Michael's last name is written as "Stoker." I can only assume that some dumb Englishman wrote down what he thought that he heard.A couple of years later, Michael's name clearly appears on land grant records as "Stocker."And, there is no doubt that the name is spelled Stocker in Schauffhausen.That leads me to my last point in this communication.I believe that it was in the Mormon records where I first noticed that George and Jacob, two of Michael's sons, spelled the name Stucker.One theory is that, despite the spelling (Stocker), it was pronounced as Stucker in Schauffhausen.It does seem to me that the Stuckers with whom I have made contact all are descended from those two.
I assume that you saw my post to you yesterday re Catherine A. Stocker.Was that information of any value to you?
I really enjoy the contacts and exchange of information on the Forum.I just wish that every Stocker who is online would discover the site and enter into the discussions.
Have a good day.Do keep in touch.