Mystery can't find relative after marriage possibly Chinese spouse

[Hirondelle]

A bit off subject but:

Peter Chungting d. Liverpool 1894, bc 1845.
Peter Chungting d. Liverpool 1890, bc 1886, maybe his son.  Cant find this Peter born 1885-1887 on GRO.
On Anc*, Peter Chungting, a storekeeper of 31 Frederick St, Liverpool.

I cant see the first Peter on the 1891.

I have only a vague experience with Chinese name research.  It was often written in a western hand how it sounded.

The OH once told me something about the 'Ah' as in Ah Jim.  If I can add any extra I will EDIT later.

bitzar.

This is really useful, thank you. And yes Ancestry have transcribed the father as Ah Jim Ching.

[BashLad]

I  actually know this one.

"Ah" isn't part of the name per se.

Saying Ah-name to the chinese is like when we change James to Jamie, Charles to Charlie, John to Johnny, Peter to Pete, David to Dave, etc.

[Hirondelle]

Oh that makes sense as Jim is also short for James.

[heywood]

Sorry i can't help you particularly but this just adds to the big picture.

Peter Chunting married Emily Moitt in 1884.
He is described as a Steward but his father is described as John Chunting, Chinese Governor (I think)

A witness is William My.

1881 3607/80/49
Emily Moitt is with her mother Mary E who I think might be the witness to your marriage.
A boarder in the house is How An, a ship's cook born China.

[Hirondelle]

And the witness to their marriage is Eliza Cheng. 

[Hirondelle]

This thread https://www.liverpool-genealogy.org.uk/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12505

is interesting too seems their witness Peter Chungting/Chunting turns up on a few documents.

[heywood]

Mary Eliza Moitt's maiden name was Cheney so the witness is possibly Eliza Cheney rather than Ching.

[Hirondelle]

Yes looking at it again it does look like Cheney, thank you

[lancsann]

Something else has struck me too, that it appears Eliza lied about her age on the marriage bann, I have her date of birth on her baptism as 1871 yet on the marriage bann her year of birth would be 1869.

I wonder if she didn't have parental permission and perhaps lied?

I did worry that perhaps all of my research has been wrong that I have the wrong Michael Redmond as her father, but consistently through the census there is a Michael Redmond married to Elizabeth Redmond with carter or cart owner as his occupation. perhaps it was to lessen the age gap between herself and James

People often lied about their age on marriage  but in this case giving age 20 would not have exempted her from parental permission as the age of consent was 21