This site is a work-in-progress. There is a massive amount to cover. I have included both male and female lines, and some go back 30 generations. Keep coming back for more.
I have numbered the generations working backwards from my own as (1)
SAMUEL BAKER and MARTHA (8)
The first of our Samuel Bakers in Deal appears to be the son of Samuel Baker of Canterbury and his wife Martha .
SAMUEL BAKER .. As yet, we have no information about Samuel’s birth. He may have come from outside Canterbury. From the date of baptism of his earliest known child, in 1745, we should expect him to have been born around 1720, or earlier. The fact that he called his eldest son John, may mean that this was his father’s name.
MARTHA ’s origins are similarly obscure. The couple were not married in St Mary Magdalene, Canterbury, where their children were baptised, so we can assume Martha’s parish was elsewhere.
They were probably married in 1744, the year before the rebellion in Scotland which unsuccessfully attempted to overthrow the house of Hanover and put the Stuart, Bonnie Prince Charlie, on the throne.
The couple had ten children in thirteen years.
1745 21 Jul Dinah
1747 14 Jun John. On 26 Aug that year, a John Baker was buried. This may be their child. Alternatively, it could be Samuel’s father.
1748 5 Jun Ann. Ann, daughter of Samuel and Martha Baker, was buried on 23 Sep.
1749 3 Aug Thomas
1750 31 Jan Ann
1752 16 Aug Lucy
1754 21 Jul Samuel
1755 5 Oct Margaret
1756 27 Oct Martha
1758 24 Dec Hester
Large families were common, but it was unusual for children to be so closely spaced. Yet we only have information that one or two of them died. This suggests the parents were able to provide for them comfortably.
Samuel Baker was buried at St Mary Magdalene on 31 Jan 1762. He was probably only in his forties.
Their large family was left orphaned. Samuel junior moved to Deal, where he married twice and raised a family. He died in possession of a house, a brewery and public house, and some farming land, as well as a considerable amount of money, and had the title of ‘Gentleman’. It is not clear whether he had always enjoyed wealth and status, or whether this came to him from his second marriage. But it does suggest that the Bakers of Canterbury were not from the lowest social class.
Next Generation: 7. BAKER-LILLY