Marriage Look-Up - Cheshire - abt 1830

[The Engineer]

Thank you for your replies, Su and Odessa!!   

Odessa - I appreciate you telling me about the BVRI, I take it from what you've said is NOT online.  But it sounds like something I shall have to get!!

Su - it's a bit complicated!   I have Charles from the 1851 census, estimated his birth as 1838.  See below:

Folio 147, Page 6. Sch.15:
John HANCOCK, H, M, 46, Labourer, R. Weaver Navigation, b. Cheshire, Weaverham.
Mary HANCOCK, Wife, M, 38, b. Cheshire, Little Leigh.
Charles HANCOCK, Son, 13, Farm Lab., b. Cheshire, Lostock.
Sarah Jane HANCOCK, Dau, 5, Scholar, b. Cheshire, Little Leigh.
Elizabeth HANCOCK, Dau, 2, Scholar, b. Cheshire, Little Leigh.
William HANCOCK, Son, 4 months, b. Cheshire, Little Leigh.

The eldest son John is over at Nursery Houses, Barnton - with Aunt & Uncle Lewis and Betsey Gaskell.  I've assumed that Charles is also the son of John Hancock's  (senior) first wifeSarah, like John Hancock (junior).  John Hancock (Senior) and Mary Ditchfield married in 1845.

Looking for John Hancock's (junior) birth I can's find anything on Free BMD, or Cheshire BMD.  But the IGI has two christenings for a  Charles HANCOCK at Great Budworth - both sons of John and Charlotte HANCOCK, in 1836 and 1837.  These are the only births I can find around that time. 

So is it possible that John Hancock (Senior) had three wives, that Charles Hancock was the son of the middle wife?? 

My brain hurts, it's too late for all this mental torture so I'm going to bed.

Thanks again to you both!!

Garry Brookes - Preston, Lancashire (UK)

[Su]

Hi Garry
If you go to 'Home' at the top of the page and click, then scroll down to Census Resources and Discussions Requests, you can ask for a BVRI look up, I'm sure some kind person will oblige.

I notice that Charles Hancock on the 1851 had 'Lostock' as his birthplace, so I have looked on the 1841 for Lostock Gralam but they aren't there. There is also a Lostock Green nearby, so I will take a look there.

I also looked on 1841 Little Leigh.  The census is very bad and there is one family with a John and Sarah, but the writing is very poor.  I will take another look to see if I can make it out.

I'm assuming that John and Sarah were still together in 1841 unless she died before the census.

I will keep my eyes peeled for them as I stroll through the leafy lanes of Cheshire 1841 

Kind regards
Su

[Su]

Hi Garry

I found Charles on the 1841 in Barnton

HO/107/92/5
Barnton

Lewis Gaskin 49 Lab born in County
Elizabeth Gaskin 50 wife born in County
Ann Johnson 13 born in County
Charles Hancock 4 born in County

I went back to 1841 Little Leigh and couldn't find the Hancocks but did find the following :-

HO107/92/16
Little Leigh

Peter Ditchfield 55 Ag Lab born in County
Jane Ditchfield 60 not born in County
Mary Ditchfield 25 born in County

So Gaskin/Gaskell it appears that John and Charles definitely are brothers.  However where John Snr and John Jnr were is still a mystery.

As Charles is 4 years old and living with the Gaskins leads me to believe that Sarah and or Charlotte have died before the 1841 census (though I could be wrong). As they are not in Little Leigh, I am wondering if the two Johns were on a boat sailing down the river at the time.

I shall keep looking.

Kind Regards
Su

[Su]

Hi Garry
Another snippet..

John Hancock married Charlotte Johnson at St. Helen's Witton on 24th April 1825.

This is interesting as on the 1841 Barnton living with The Gaskin's is an Ann Johnson.

Also Lewis Gaskin married Elizabeth Harrison on 5th May 1829 at Witton.

So it seems there is a connection here.

Where did you get 'Sarah's name from

Kind regards
Su

[Su]

Hi Garry

1861
RG9/2868 Ed 2 Folio 32 page 10
Ardwick Manchester

Charles Hancock 25 Railway Porter born Little Leigh
Mary Hancock wife 27 born Whitley
Jane Wilkinson 15 sister in law born Whitley

So I think Mary was a Wilkinson when she married Charles.

Kind Regards
Su

[The Engineer]

Hi again Su!!

as explained in the p.m., apologies for not getting back to you right away.  But I have now had chance to study all that you have sent to me, compare it against my tree and make a few conclusions:

1.  I think the mystery wife "Sarah" of John Hancock (b.1805) is a red herring.  I have tried to verify the source, it comes from some research another genealogist did and was not verified against a source.  So I have now "dismissed" this in favour of the facts you have found - and that Charlotte Johnson was the mother of John, Charles and Charles Hancock.
2.  Fine on the Charles Hancock (1837) marriage to Mary Wilkinson.  This is interstsing, in that I already have Wilkinson's in my tree, and they could well be related.  It starts with George Wilkinson (b.1778, Little Leigh) who married Mary Hancock (b.1766 Witton) on 9th Sept 1798 at All Saint's, Daresbury. They are my 3xg.grandparents in another line.  Their daughter Sarah Wilkinson (b 1816 Gt Budworth) married John Porter (b 1803 Daresbury) and their daughter Mary Porter (b.1862 Anderton) was the mother of my grandfather Edward Brookes (b.1898 Wincham). I can't see any immediate link from these Wilkinson's to the two Wilkinson girls in the 1861 census - Mary and Jane over in Ardwick - but I wouldn't mind betting they are related!!
3.  In 2 above, we have another Hancock!!  Now again, I can't relate this Mary Hancock back to the main group of Hancocks, although there must be a link! 
4.  Johnson also features heavily in other lines but I can't relate them to the Johnson you have found here Su.  My grandmother was Lottie Johnson (b.1901 Barnton), daughter of George Wilson Johnson (b.1867 Anderton) and Sarah Ann Hancock (b. 1864 Barnton).  Sarah was the daughter of John Hancock (1833) and Charlotte Senior (1826) who we have already covered...
5.  Another Johnson in another line is Hannah Johnson (b.1823, unknown) who married John Wilson (b.1820 Warmingham) at Gt Budworth on 30th Oct 1843.  These are again 3x g.grandparents, their daughter Mary W Wilson (b.1843 Anderton) married Samuel Johnson (b.1843 Anderton) 20th Feb 1865 at Barnton, their son being George Wilson Johnson in 4. above!!

Su, if you are interested and would like to help unravel more of these twisted branches, I can send you the above as text files or tree formats so you can see more clearly what I'm on about.  But it does appear to me that although not yet proven the occurrences of Johnson, Hancock and Wilkinson in my tree MUST be related sonmewhere.  It would be interesting if we could find out where they link.  I appreciate your assistance up 'till now, you have helped a great deal in solving some family mysteries for me.

I'll send you a p.m. so you can e-mail me direct if you wish to do so.

Huge thanks!!

Garry Brookes - Preston, Lancashire