Major Headache

[janan]

There are other Isaacs in Staffs in 41 but not potters or in Stoke except Isaac Harrison 50 Potter not appearing to be living with any family in Burslem.
Could he be the one Sarah married? Could Isaac Tansley be a relative not Sarah's husband? If so where is Isaac Harrison age about 60 in 1851?
This gets worse instead of better

Jan

[suey]

Isaac Harrison 1861 - RG9/1930  Folio 73  page 34.

Can someone with access have a look at this page?
I gave this family in 1851 to ijl in a pm then said discard it...but...what does the team think?

At the top of the page is a James Poole 81 with a wife Lydia age 71 - with them is grandaughter Sarah Harrison age 24.
Not sure of James Pooles occ but looks like a master crate maker retired.

Next household - mistranscribed as Hamson is
ANN HARRISON a widow with son ISAAC unm an earthenware printer.

Will look again at 1851.

At Commercial Road Stoke on Trent in 1851 -
HO107/2003  Folio 532  paage 1.
James Poole, wife Lydia and grandaughter Sarah Harrison age 16 a bonnet maker born Hanley.

Dipped if I can find Issac, all I can see are Coal Miners

[janan]

The Isaac you found in 61 is the one I found in 41 - think that rules him out as the one who married Sarah - I think he is the same guy who is still around in 1881. Which leaves the Isaac age 50 in 1841 unless Sarah's Isaac is from outside Stoke on Trent. Don't think this mess is going to get sorted without a few certificates.
Jan

[Valda]

Isaac in 1841 would be 12 so he might have no occupation. On the 1851 census he was a pot painter. I don't think there is any more going on, on the 1851 census except the confusion of the census enumerator with names. I wouldn't make a more complicated scenarios if as yet it isn't necessary. The facts from the other Tansley censuses 'fit', as does the marriage and the birth of George Albert.

If you are going to be a bigamist, and a surprising number of people did go along this route as divorces were unaffordable for most people, you didn't usually stay in the same area and do it. People were sympathetic but there was a limit. Bigamy was a felony (serious numbers of years in prison with hard labour). Somebody would be bound to tell on you sooner or later. However you could 'hide' in large populations and take the risk.
If Isaac didn't die and he remained in the area openly the only other option would be an expensive divorce, as no legal aid was available. Men could get a divorce on the grounds of adultery alone, women needed adultery plus something else such as desertion and/or cruelty. If Sarah was divorced then it should state that on her second marriage, as it should on Isaac's if he is the same man as on the 1881 census and he married again and didn't just live as a married couple with his 'wife' Eliza on the 1881 census.

So could he be the same man?
On the 1881 census he was a potter of the right age and born Hanley living in Burslem with his wife Eliza born Burslem circa 1831 and his daughter Eliza born Burslem circa 1866. On the 1871 census he was still in Burslem a potter printer (which might be the same as 1851 - I read it as pot painter but it could have been pot printer) with his wife and daughter (same details) but in addition is present his widowed mother Ann born circa 1803 Hanley (now there's handy).
1861 census still in Burslem. Mother Ann is born circa 1802 in Chesterfield, but otherwise Isaacs' facts are the same and he is an earthenware printer unmarried.
1851 census widowed mother Ann born Hanley circa 1804, is in Shelton and Hanley with her daughter Emily born circa 1838, and sons John born circa 1833 and Joseph born circa 1840 all Hanley. No Isaac.
I don't have access to the 1841 census so I can't say what and where the family was on that census.
The nearest Isaac Harrison marriage I can see on FreeBMD to an Eliza is

Marriages Sep 1865
HARRISON  Isaac    Congleton  8a 343  
Scragg  Eliza     Congleton  8a 343  

As there are quite a few Isaac Harrisons knocking about this doesn't mean it is the potter.

However if Isaac Harrison is this man and his marriage broke down for whatever reason it might account for why George wished in everyday life at least to be known in his stepfather's surname (keep on the family name in the business) and not by his real father's surname.

Isaac was still in Burslem a potter's printer with his wife and daughter on the 1891 census. I can't as yet see him in 1901 and I think this is his death registration (the registration district covers Burslem)

Isaac Harrison aged 64 March quarter 1894 Wolstanton volume 6b page 105.

Regards

Valda

[ijl]

This adds weight to that marriage Suey found
Jan

1841
Farr Green Upper Hanley
William Bradbury 51 Butcher
Samuel Bradbury 15
Born in county
HO107/990/7 Pg2

Hi every body,

just re-entered the common room. IM STUNNED

I thought this topic was finished with on Sunday. Just dont know how
to thank you all for your wonderfull efforts.

While i read, re-read, digest and sort out your postings, thought i
would just add this small snippet in comparison to the others.

Re the info in the inserted quote

Samuel Bradbury c.23 April 1826 Hanley
William -father
Elizabeth-mother

from I.G.I

      regards    IJL

[janan]

Hi Valda
On Page one of this thread you will find Isaac 12  in 1841 living in Shelton with mother Ann he is a Pottery Figure Maker. As he is at home with Ann and unmarried in 1851 he can't be the one who married Sarah can he    Although as you say if it was him it might explain a lot

Jan

[janan]

Hi IJL

Hi every body,

just re-entered the common room. IM STUNNED

I thought this topic was finished with on Sunday.

We don't give up that easily   

Visit Rosemary's summary link if you want to make some sense out of what we've done to your family

Cheers Jan

Now why isn't that quote inside the blue box where it ought to be

[Valda]

But the point Jan is he isn't. He is missing from the 1851 census and not with his mother and siblings. He is with his mother and stating unmarried on the 1861 census (stating something and it being true not necessarily being the same thing) and found on all other censuses except crucially the 1851 census.
So where was he on the 1851 census? Down the road and married to Sarah and with the Tansleys??
You can't prove it one way or another without knowing what the Isaac who married Sarah said about his father and occupation. Unfortunately no father on the 1841 census but this entry on the IGI looks a possibility.

ISAAC HARRISON  
Christening:  06 SEP 1829   Hanley, Stafford
Father:  JOHN HARRISON  Family
Mother:  ANNE  

other possible siblings who compare with those on the 1841 census (and there might be other older ones on the IGI) are

CHARLES HARRISON
Christening: 20 JUN 1827 Hanley, Stafford

JOHN HARRISON
Christening: 16 SEP 1832 Hanley, Stafford

both father John and mother Anne

Register on the coverage on the IGI stops in 1835.

If the father's occupation and name on this Isaac's baptismal entry checks with what the Isaac said on his marriage to Sarah then I think you are onto a very strong possibility that this is the same Isaac throughout. We'll just have to wait and see. If it doesn't check out then its back to the drawing board.

Regards

Valda

[rosemaryag]

OK I am very confused now  and too tired to work it through tonight!!

One thought re Valda's good point that bigamists couldn't afford to be found out.... in 1861 Census onwards this Isaac Harrison was in Burslem. This was part of a pretty active industrial centre at the time - would it
a) be far enough from Hanley and
b) have large enough population
 for a bigamist to expect to not be found out?

OK - bed for me now... Of course, I expect it all to be sorted when I log on tomorrow  (in my dreams the GRO can deliver certificates overnight )

cheers
Rosemary