Trouble in Liverpool

[Neale1961]

This is Jane Collins first marriage to Thomas Carroll in 1847 Dublin.
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1847/09328/5377673.pdf
[Link will open once you have proved you are not a robot.]

Even though she was underage on this marriage, it’s clear she is older than she had recorded in the 1861-1881 census.


This is Jane and husband Thomas in Liverpool in 1851 census
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SG54-21R
Her birth around 1828 - more believable.


There was a son born in 1852.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JSVJ-B4C
Birth rego
CARROLL, HENRY                  mother - COLLINS 
GRO Reference: 1852  D Quarter in LIVERPOOL  Volume 08B  Page 145

---- and a possible death for him in 1854 Liverpool, age 1

And also a daughter named Margaret, who also died as an infant, before 1851 census.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:J9DD-2PT
CARROLL, MARGARET                 mother -COLLINS 
GRO Reference: 1849  D Quarter in LIVERPOOL  Volume 20  Page 377

[Neale1961]

I would suggest that Jane Collin's mother was named Margaret.
The name Margaret is clearly important to the naming of her daughters, and the other witness (besides her father) on her marriage in Ireland was Margaret Collins.

It is possible that Jane was really "Margaret Jane" (as on death cert), but was known as Jane to avoid confusion with her mother. Anyway, I think it is understandable that her name is recorded that way on her death cert.

There is a death in 1870 in Dublin North which might be for Jane’s father. You need to apply for the certificate.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:HP68-86T2

[AGEP]

Wow, thankyou all for the time and effort you've put into helping me.  I certainly have some valuable leads to go on with now.  Can't thank you all enough.

[Neale1961]

Do let us know if you are stuck with anything, and how you get on. 

[AGEP]

Thanks again for all of your hard work, but reading back through what has been posted leaves me with one nagging question.  I can accept that the guy transcribing the banns could have mistakenly misheard and written printer for porter (the writing was such that my first reading of it was painter because I had taken the cursive r to be an a), but the Queensland death certificate that I have clearly says printer too.  John Johnson had been the informant for this.  I don't trust him necessarily for name and date accuracy (maybe near enough was good enough?) but would he have told them printer instead of porter do you think?  To me it would have been the thing he'd most likely get right given how it lined up with his own former profession.

I think on the balance of probabilities that these are the correct people though.  Whilst none of them have an uncommon or distinctive name, how many families with the right names and dates of birth could there be in the right place and at the right time?  Do you think it possible that William had a career change?  Did people really do that in those days?

[Neale1961]

There is no evidence from the census, or his marriage, or the children’s baptisms that William was anything but a porter.
I also think we have identified the correct people, and address and dates align.

It is not unknown for children to inflate the occupation of their father on marriage. Something to do with trying to look like you were “more affluent” than was factual. In William’s case his father had been a tailor, so working as a porter (unskilled labourer) would have seemed a step down socially. People did have changes in occupation, but to move from a porter to a printer would have been a rather large step.

By way of example - in my extended tree I have a father who worked as a porter for a tailor in London. He was described as the tailor on his daughter’s marriage. The next child inflated him to a Saville Row tailor! As appealing as that might have been, it certainly was not the case!