Looking for Nelly Bamford, probably born Rochdale 1760s

[Aulus]

I have my 4x great grandparents Richard Hill and Nelly Bamford, marrying at Rochdale St Chad 6th November 1783.

I've made good progress with Richard Hill, but can find absolutely nothing on Nelly Bamford, beyond the marriage and her being shown as the mother on the six children (James 1791; Thomas 1795; Susan 1798; Mary 1800; Mary 1803; Benjamin 1807).

Richard was born 1761, and I assume that Nelly would be about the same age: certainly she'd have to be born 1767 at the latest to be married in 1783.  The only other clue is that one of the witnesses at the wedding is a James Bamford, who is probably either the father or a brother.

Can anyone see a baptism for her?  Or her burial?

[rosie99]

Interesting that the marriage was by Licence and the source on lancsopc was 'Private Transcription' and not LDS film or PR.

[ColC]

The best I can find is Ellen Bamford born 24 Apr 1765 Baptised 5 May 1765 Croston, Lancashire, Father John mother Jenet. Abode BRETHERTON followed by the word Husband?

There are a couple of James born in Lancashire father John but different mothers.

Colin

[lancsann]

The best I can find is Ellen Bamford born 24 Apr 1765 Baptised 5 May 1765 Croston, Lancashire, Father John mother Jenet. Abode BRETHERTON followed by the word Husband?

There are a couple of James born in Lancashire father John but different mothers.

Colin

the transcription is husbandman which means approximately tenant farmer

[Aulus]

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone.

Yes, the marriage by licence and "private transcription" are curious, I agree.

The transcription is correct (the BT and the register are both on Ancestry).

Anyone know if and/or where the licence might still exist or have been transcribed?

It's unusual - in my experience at least - for a marriage to be by licence and to have a relative present.  I'm not sure what conclusion I can draw from that - I don't think it necessarily means she was either under or over 21. I suppose it might have needed to be a speedy marriage, and they couldn't wait for three weeks of banns.  Which reminds me of something else odd about this couple: they married in 1783, but the first baptism of a child was not until 1791.

I saw that Croston baptism, but was not convinced by it - for the reasons, you suggest, Colin.