Can't find a marriage

[stevelord65]

Thanks for all your replies. John & Henrietta show as married in the 1861 census, and on their daughter's 1862 birth certificate, Henrietta puts her surname as "Lloyd formerly Hopkins", but I suppose they must have just been pretending to be married the whole time? Was that sort of thing common in the 19th century?

By the way, John got married again in 1876, to an Alice Wolverson: I'm pretty sure this is the Alice in the 1881 census (the ages match up) 

[stevelord65]

Just to add to that last post, Henrietta died in 1874 leaving John a widower for 2 years before marrying again. After pretending to be married to each other for what must have been 7 years at least, he was only "officially" married to Henrietta for 6. Am guessing they couldn't have got married until 1868 because John's first wife was still alive - not sure how I can trace this first wife but will see what I can do

[theirchild]

EDIT: Please ignore this post - it's way off the mark  , as admitted in my next post on this thread (reply#13 - how appropriate!).

Hello there stevelord65,

I'm wondering if you've seen this? Could the John Lloyd, draper, in this record - with wife Maria - be your John Lloyd? (Was John's first wife called Maria?) 

https://www.liverpoolmaritime.org/PersonRecordIDSearch.php?Record_Of_Origin=BAPT287158&Relationship=Baptised

I've also posted some (possibly relevant) info to your other ("Lloyd and Co") thread.

Good luck,

theirchild

[josey]

Well found but according to the marriage licence on Ancestry dated 12 Aug 1828 a John Lloyd,  Draper, was a widower of Preston aged 34 when he married Maria Tate aged 21 a spinster. This is probably the parents in the baptism found by theirchild. So this John was born ca 1790 cannot be the John Lloyd in question as he was born ca 1830.

[theirchild]

Reply #12 by Josey: "...the John Lloyd in question...was born ca 1830."

Oops!!! I missed that extremely vital fact! Makes me look like one of those people with impossible-to-be-true family trees!!! (Children born before their parents/born to deceased parents, and so on.)
 

Thanks for pointing it out, Josey but I really wouldn't call my contribution "well found" - the word "dunce" seems more appropriate for me on this occasion. I've been awake all night, struggling with my laptop which is on its last legs, and I evidently wasn't as alert as I thought when reading the thread.

So please accept my sincere apologies, stevelord65, Josey and everyone else...and do, please ignore my reply #11. 

In view of Josey's helpful revelation (well, it was a revelation to me!) I've just edited (after several attempts because my laptop keeps crashing) some of the info I posted to stevelord65's other thread, re. Lloyd and Co...mainly, a now-obviously-duff bit about an 1840 bankruptcy - because I've not heard of many 9-10 year old children going bankrupt!!! 

theirchild

[josey]

No apology necessary theirchild - we are REALLY polite on rootschat  so I tried to put the age thing tactfully!.

Hope you get your laptop sorted.

[theirchild]

Thanks, Josey - yes, you definitely put it in the most polite and tactful way possible.

My laptop is non-salvageable, unfortunately. The memory (RAM) has become faulty and the test that I ran said it needs replacing - but since the laptop's old, a bit tatty and the OS is the now-unsupported Windows 8.1, replacing the RAM would be uneconomic. My OH has gone to John Lewis this afternoon* to buy a new one that I've chosen (or order one if it's out of stock by the time OH gets there - the website said the store only had one in stock).

* I'm housebound so can't go myself.

Thanks again, 

theirchild

[stevelord65]

Thanks for your reply theirchild, and don't worry  I make mistakes like that all the time !

[trish1120]

Yes having children before marrying was more common than we would think in the 1800's