I think 'the team's' combined efforts have created a really interesting working hypothesis. We now need further evidence to support the hypothesis.
First part of the hypothesis
Isaac Harrison is the same man baptised in 1829, to parents John and Ann, who appears on the 1841 and 1851 censuses in Hanley and the 1861, 71, 81 and 91 censuses in Burslem. He is Sarah' Tansleys first husband.
The two pieces of evidence needed to 'triangulate' with the census records is
1829 baptismal record for Isaac's father's occupation (and anything else it produces - and if you are obtaining this record, a check in the register for the other siblings baptisms to see whether the names and ages match to the 1841 and 1851 censuses)
Isaac's 1850 marriage certificate to Sarah for the name of their fathers and their occupations (and anything else it produces such as witness names/addresses which might be useful).
If the evidence from these two sources supports the census information then there is a very strong case that Isaac on all these records is the same man.
The second part of the hypothesis is the Sarah who married Samuel was the same woman as the Sarah who married Isaac.
For this is needed Sarah's second 1871 marriage certificate for her father's full name (the BVRI gives us Tounsley and Sarah's age - the age matches with the 1851 census) and occupation with the interesting by product of Sarah's status on marriage.
Sarah should either marry as widow or divorced.
Because the evidence points to the fact she was the daughter of a tradesman's family and married into a tradesman's family, if she stayed in the area I just can't see how she could marry again as a widow - even in Stoke (did Samuel and Sarah stay in the area? - what happened to them after the 1871 census?). If they did stay then it would have required the whole of the Harrison family (siblings wives and children - and their wives' families') to have left the area. Otherwise someone in this extended group must have known Isaac was still alive. The only other way would be if Isaac and his mother had done a moonlight flit and broken all contact with the family. Isaac may be, but his mother as well? So if Sarah is a widow on her second marriage, that either brings into question all these censuses are of the same man, or that Sarah was the same Sarah who married Isaac, or the reasoning that states it was too risky for her to commit bigamy is flawed somehow.
If Sarah was divorced on her second marriage (expensive but possible to afford for succesful trademen's families) then that's very good if you like more records - local newspaper accounts and divorce case papers from The National Archives could give further detail.
Hard as it is to 'put down' such an interesting story I think we just have to wait for the necessary evidence and with it the next instalment.
Regards
Valda
