Roger HURST ca 1798

[garlands]

Thank you.

I thought I'd done all that but, apparently, I hadn't. I've just done a revised search which has produced 16 results, including the 7 you list plus 8 for HURST and 1 for HAIHURST.

Although the transcripts give his occupation as 'currier', my reading of the originals is 'carrier'; what do you think? Not that it's important, merely a matter of interest.

No, I've not checked the baptisms on Lancs OPC.

[hanes teulu]

"Carrier" or "Currier" - it IS important as part of linking the various records.

On your list of 16 hits returned, the 4th entry down should be the register recording marriage licence bond No 1075. Roger Hayhurst is the last entry on page.
In that line I see 4 x lower case "a" and 3 x lower case "u". What do you see - particularly column 6?

[garlands]

Definitely 'u'

[garlands]

It appears that Roger what's-his-name baptized 3 children in Ormskirk:-

03 Jul 1795   William   parents  Roger & Agatha HEYHURST
18 Jan 1797   Nancy        do                     do
06 Feb 1799   Jane          do     Roger & Agnes  HAYHURST

and one in Wigan:-

17 Dec 1800  Alice  3rd daughter of Roger  HEYHURST (a currier) & Agnes (formerly SUMNER)
                                                     mother's parents Thomas & Nanny SUMNER

The only marriage which seems to fit is:-

17 Feb 1794  Roger HAYHURST    m    Agnes SUMNER     in  Leyland
                       a  Currier
                      of Clitheroe                     of Leyland (17m from Clitheroe)

Roger HEYHURST, Currier, engaged at least 2 apprentices (1797 & 1798) in Ormskirk (12m from Leyland)

I can't find any record of a baptism for an Agatha SUMNER. There is, however:-

07 Jan 1770 Agness (sic)   dr of Thomas & Elizabeth SUMNER in Walton le Dale (3m to Leyland)

Is 'Elizabeth' the 'Nanny' mentioned above?.

I think that "Agatha" must be a mistake, although why it would be repeated 18 months after its first appearance is difficult to explain. Another mystery (to me, at any rate) is why the "HEY" should come to be dropped from Roger's surname.

Unless there are any errors on my part still remaining, I think my original query has been answered.