Searching for Elizabeth Hancock marriages tells me that Volume 22, Page
326 contains for 1837Q3 Sheffield:

CRESWICK Richard
HANCOCK Elizabeth
HOLMES Mary Ann
LEARE Sarah
NICHOLSON Esther
WOLSTENHOLME Thomas

Obviously, that's four females and two males, so is incomplete; I
_believe_ she probably married Phineas Russell, but can't find the
marriage (including in Yorkshire marriages in various record sets).
(Searching for Phineas Russell marriages _does_ find one in 1837Q3, but
in Wolverhampton.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Actors are fairly modest...A lot of us have quite a lot to be modest about. -
Simon Greenall (voice of Aleksandr the "Simples!" Meerkat), RT 11-17 Dec 2010

On 24/07/2023 04:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Searching for Elizabeth Hancock marriages tells me that Volume 22, Page
> 326 contains for 1837Q3 Sheffield:
>
> CRESWICK         Richard
> HANCOCK  Elizabeth
> HOLMES   Mary Ann
> LEARE    Sarah
> NICHOLSON        Esther
> WOLSTENHOLME     Thomas
>
> Obviously, that's four females and two males, so is incomplete; I
> _believe_ she probably married Phineas Russell, but can't find the
> marriage (including in Yorkshire marriages in various record sets).
> (Searching for Phineas Russell marriages _does_ find one in 1837Q3, but
> in Wolverhampton.)

FindMyPast thinks it was one of these: Thomas Wolstenholme, Richard
Creswick, Joseph Smith

If you can find the couple in the 1841 or later censuses, that might
confirm which one.
--
Cheers,
Roger

On 24/07/2023 04:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Searching for Elizabeth Hancock marriages tells me that Volume 22, Page
> 326 contains for 1837Q3 Sheffield:
>
> CRESWICK         Richard
> HANCOCK  Elizabeth
> HOLMES   Mary Ann
> LEARE    Sarah
> NICHOLSON        Esther
> WOLSTENHOLME     Thomas
>
> Obviously, that's four females and two males, so is incomplete; I
> _believe_ she probably married Phineas Russell, but can't find the
> marriage (including in Yorkshire marriages in various record sets).
> (Searching for Phineas Russell marriages _does_ find one in 1837Q3, but
> in Wolverhampton.)

I searched for Richard Creswick on FMP and found it easily. All four
marriages should be consecutive in the parish register, so there it was,
the very next marriage. Elizabeth Hancock, 20, married James Roberts,
21, on August 7 1837, at Sheffield Cathedral.

The GRO index demonstrates that Elizabeth's maiden name was Hancock, but
the earliest child to Phileas and Elizabeth Russell in the census was
born around 1850, so the marriage you want is probably just before then.
It doesn't seem to be indexed in FreeBMD. Neither obvious Elizabeth
Roberts marriage leads anywhere immediately helpful. I'll keep digging.

I hope this helps
Steven

On 24/07/2023 13:32, Steven Gibbs wrote:
>
> I searched for Richard Creswick on FMP and found it easily. All four
> marriages should be consecutive in the parish register, so there it was,
> the very next marriage. Elizabeth Hancock, 20, married James Roberts,
> 21, on August 7 1837, at Sheffield Cathedral.
>
> The GRO index demonstrates that Elizabeth's maiden name was Hancock, but
> the earliest child to Phileas and Elizabeth Russell in the census was
> born around 1850, so the marriage you want is probably just before then.
> It doesn't seem to be indexed in FreeBMD. Neither obvious Elizabeth
> Roberts marriage leads anywhere immediately helpful. I'll keep digging.

James and Elizabeth Roberts are still married in 1851, so that marriage
is a red herring.

Steven

In message <ki720vFuslU1@mid.individual.net> at Mon, 24 Jul 2023
11:27:42, Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> writes
>On 24/07/2023 04:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Searching for Elizabeth Hancock marriages tells me that Volume 22,
>>Page 326 contains for 1837Q3 Sheffield:
>> CRESWICK         Richard
>> HANCOCK  Elizabeth
>> HOLMES   Mary Ann
>> LEARE    Sarah
>> NICHOLSON        Esther
>> WOLSTENHOLME     Thomas
>> Obviously, that's four females and two males, so is incomplete; I
>>_believe_ she probably married Phineas Russell, but can't find the
>>marriage (including in Yorkshire marriages in various record sets).
>>(Searching for Phineas Russell marriages _does_ find one in 1837Q3,
>>but in Wolverhampton.)
>
>
>FindMyPast thinks it was one of these: Thomas Wolstenholme, Richard
>Creswick, Joseph Smith

Yes, thanks, I found that too: so FMP had three males out of the
presumably four. (I thought FMP, like Ancestry, based their knowledge of
civil marriages before 191x on FreeBMD's data, but maybe they add extras
found by users.) But, as Steven Gibbs has very kindly found for me, the
Liz H 1837 marriage _wasn't_ (I think) the one I'm looking for.
>
>If you can find the couple in the 1841 or later censuses, that might
>confirm which one.

1841 in Sheffield:
Phaneas [sic] Russell 25 Awl Blade Maker No
Elizabeth do 20 N
William do 3 Y

(Probably the 25 and 20 are rounded down of course.)

1851 in Sheffield:
Phineas RuSsell 38 Awl Blade M. Bloxwich York*
Eliz . 34 Bloxwich Staff
Arthur 1 Shefd Yor

* actually a ditto from the lines above, which I suspect is in error
(_is_ there even a Bloxwich in Yorkshire?)

OK, William has presumably died or is elsewhere, but given the unusual
name Ph?neas, and the same profession, I'm reasonably confident these
are the same family in the two censuses.

Oh - why do I think Eliz* was Hancock? From MMN in GRO for one of their
children. Let me just check for the two shown: Ah, William 1838±1, no
Hancock! Nor Arthur 1850±1! Let me find again the one I did use: Yes,
Mary Elizabeth Russell, 1863Q1, Eccleshall Bierlow (which is very close
to Sheffield), is indeed MMN Hancock.

I have 1861, Eccleshall Bierlow, Sheffield - Russell:
Phineas 47 Awl Blade Maker Staffordshire Bloxwith
Elizabeth 44 Do Do
Arthur 11 Scholar Yorks. Sheffield
John H. 6 Do Do Do

which given Phineas, occupation, _and_ Arthur, is clearly definitely the
same as 1851 (1841 still not certain)

and 1871, EB (S), R:
Phineas 58 ABM S B
Elizabeth 52 " "
John H 16 Grinder Y Sh
Mary E 8 Scholar Y Sh

so I'm pretty sure the Mary Elizabeth I am interested in is of this
family, and it's the same family as in 1861 and 1851. But you might be
right (and Steven Gibbs' finding may support this), perhaps not the 1841
one, despite the coincidence of name(s), ages, occupation, and location!

Off to reply to Steven Gibbs' post now, and to look for suitable
marriages around 1850!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.

In message <u9lr1e$la8o$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 24 Jul 2023 13:32:46,
Steven Gibbs <steven@stevengibbs.me.uk> writes
>On 24/07/2023 04:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Searching for Elizabeth Hancock marriages tells me that Volume 22,
>>Page 326 contains for 1837Q3 Sheffield:
>> CRESWICK         Richard
>> HANCOCK  Elizabeth
>> HOLMES   Mary Ann
>> LEARE    Sarah
>> NICHOLSON        Esther
>> WOLSTENHOLME     Thomas
>> Obviously, that's four females and two males, so is incomplete; I
>>_believe_ she probably married Phineas Russell, but can't find the
>>marriage (including in Yorkshire marriages in various record sets).
>>(Searching for Phineas Russell marriages _does_ find one in 1837Q3,
>>but in Wolverhampton.)
>
>I searched for Richard Creswick on FMP and found it easily. All four
>marriages should be consecutive in the parish register, so there it
>was, the very next marriage. Elizabeth Hancock, 20, married James
>Roberts, 21, on August 7 1837, at Sheffield Cathedral.

Thanks! See my reply to Roger Mills' post. It begins to look like -
despite amazing coincidence of names, ages (allowing for 1841 rounding),
POB, location, and profession, the 1841 family I was looking at _isn't_
the same as the one in 1851, '61, and '71.

(Interesting that the cathedral served as the parish church. [I've got
another marriage there - the register doesn't even mention that it _is_
the cathedral, just the parish church: I only know it's the cathedral as
FMP says that's where the record came from.] I guess it - and probably
most other cathedrals - did normal bred/wed/dead service for those
living nearby.)
>
>The GRO index demonstrates that Elizabeth's maiden name was Hancock,

Which entry in the GRO index? I didn't know you could find marriages in
the GRO, only births and deaths. Or do you mean for one of the
children's birth? I can see Arthur - as Arthur Thomas - as 1850Q2, with
MMN HANCOCKS (with the S).

>but the earliest child to Phileas and Elizabeth Russell in the census

(I presume you mean the 1851 census, not the 1841 one I found [spelt
Phaneas].)

>was born around 1850, so the marriage you want is probably just before
>then. It doesn't seem to be indexed in FreeBMD. Neither obvious
>Elizabeth Roberts marriage leads anywhere immediately helpful. I'll
>keep digging.

Very kind! Don't expend effort on my account: looks like I've made an
error, though I think you'll grant understandable! It's the Russell
family I'm after, not the Creswick one.
>
>I hope this helps

It does indeed! Now off to try to find a _later_ Russell/Hancock
marriage.

Hmm. FreeBMD - specifying only Phineas Russell, no spouse details -
starts with only 1837, 1850, and 1894, and the 1850 one (in Walsall) has
no Eliz*.

I've looked through quite a lot of record sets at both Ancestry and FMP
(often just specifying Ph* Rus*). Trying familysearch … ah, a marriage
of a Phineas Russell, in 1850, in Bloxwich, where I know they were both
born! Unfortunately, it's to an Ann Smith, not an Elizabeth Hancock. But
that does send me scurrying back to look in Staffordshire on A and FMP.
No luck (several sets)! And no more (relevant) hits in familysearch,
either.

Any ideas where else to look for this marriage (Ph*s Rus*l to Eliz*
Han*k)?

>Steven
>
>
>
John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.

On 24/07/2023 15:49, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

>
> (Interesting that the cathedral served as the parish church. [I've got
> another marriage there - the register doesn't even mention that it _is_
> the cathedral, just the parish church: I only know it's the cathedral as
> FMP says that's where the record came from.]
>

In this case (and in several other places) the reason is probably that
it was not a cathedral at the time. Sheffield Parish Church only became
a cathedral when that diocese was created in 1914.
--
Chris Pitt Lewis

On 24/07/2023 15:49, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
> It does indeed! Now off to try to find a _later_ Russell/Hancock
marriage.
>
> Hmm. FreeBMD - specifying only Phineas Russell, no spouse details -
starts with only 1837, 1850, and 1894, and the 1850 one (in Walsall) has
no Eliz*.
>
> I've looked through quite a lot of record sets at both Ancestry and
FMP (often just specifying Ph* Rus*). Trying familysearch … ah, a
marriage of a Phineas Russell, in 1850, in Bloxwich, where I know they
were both born! Unfortunately, it's to an Ann Smith, not an Elizabeth
Hancock. But that does send me scurrying back to look in Staffordshire
on A and FMP. No luck (several sets)! And no more (relevant) hits in
familysearch, either.

There are clealy two Phineas Russells. Both seem to be from
Staffordshire. One moved to Sheffield; the other stayed put, and can be
followed through from his 1837 marriage to Maria Stocking to his 1850
remarriage, etc..

Using the GRO births I found the earliest Russell/Hancock birth in
Sheffield was a Thomas in 1845, which narrows the range down a bit.
(This Thomas probably died in 1848.) Given that Phineas and Elizabeth
are both from Bloxwich, it must be a possibility that they married in
Staffordshire (or Sheffield) before civil registration started, had a
child beford July 1837, and then nothing that survived until 1845, with
other children being born intermittently after that. It does seem
unlikely though. I can't find anything else.

Steven

(eternal-september has died on me. Back to PlusNet!)

In message <u9m76u$ng2e$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 24 Jul 2023 17:00:29,
Chris Pitt Lewis <chris@cjpl.co.uk> writes
>On 24/07/2023 15:49, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> (Interesting that the cathedral served as the parish church. [I've
>>got another marriage there - the register doesn't even mention that
>>it _is_ the cathedral, just the parish church: I only know it's the
>>cathedral as FMP says that's where the record came from.]
>
>In this case (and in several other places) the reason is probably that
>it was not a cathedral at the time. Sheffield Parish Church only became
>a cathedral when that diocese was created in 1914.

Ah, that explains it. In which case FMP's breakdown saying it is, is
either actually incorrect, or misleading.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Norman Tebbitt has the irritating quality of being much nicer in person than
he is in print. - Clive Anderson, RT 1996/10/12-18

In message <H-KdnQiwq_ygTCP5nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Mon,
24 Jul 2023 20:30:04, Steven Gibbs <steven@stevengibbs.me.uk> writes
[]
>There are clealy two Phineas Russells. Both seem to be from
>Staffordshire. One moved to Sheffield; the other stayed put, and can be
>followed through from his 1837 marriage to Maria Stocking to his 1850
>remarriage, etc..

Ah - I'd seen the 1837 one to Maria Stocking, but hadn't thought of him
_re_marrying!
>
>Using the GRO births I found the earliest Russell/Hancock birth in
>Sheffield was a Thomas in 1845, which narrows the range down a bit.
>(This Thomas probably died in 1848.) Given that Phineas and Elizabeth
>are both from Bloxwich, it must be a possibility that they married in
>Staffordshire (or Sheffield) before civil registration started, had a

I'd (belatedly) thought of the possibility they married in or near
Bloxwich, but couldn't find that (looking through quite a few datasets
[Yorkshire, Staffordshire, and England] on both Ancestry and FMP, and
even familysearch).

>child beford July 1837, and then nothing that survived until 1845, with
>other children being born intermittently after that. It does seem
>unlikely though. I can't find anything else.

Indeed. I thought them only having one child with them - a 3-year-old -
in 1841, and then only having one child - a 1-year-old - with them in
1851 seemed a bit unlikely, but given both the unusual name (albeit
Phaneas in '41), a wife Eliz*, and the same occupation (Awl Blade M.),
I'd assumed they _were_ the same couple. (I'm pretty sure the ones I've
found in '51/'61/'71 _are_, from children with them, but the '41 one
might not be.)
>
>Steven
>
>(eternal-september has died on me. Back to PlusNet!)
>
(I've had that both ways round I think. Plus having to switch to e-s
when away from home and thus not on a PlusNet connection.) (Using plus
ATM.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Norman Tebbitt has the irritating quality of being much nicer in person than
he is in print. - Clive Anderson, RT 1996/10/12-18

Chris Pitt Lewis wrote:
> Sheffield Parish Church only became a cathedral when that diocese was
> created in 1914.
And presumably FMP, like FamilySearch, doesn't realise that status can
be time-dependent.

In message <j2-dncjCUK-4YF75nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Fri,
28 Jul 2023 18:38:45, Ian Goddard <ian_ng@austonley.org.uk> writes
>Chris Pitt Lewis wrote:
>> Sheffield Parish Church only became a cathedral when that diocese was
>>created in 1914.
>And presumably FMP, like FamilySearch, doesn't realise that status can
>be time-dependent.

We get similar (I think from more than one out of
FMP/Ancestry/FamilySearch) with places in counties: I'm sure I've found
at least one of them insisting that somewhere was and is in (say) Tyne
and Wear, regardless of date. (Tyne and Wear was one of the ones created
in, IIRR, 1974 [out of bits of what had been Northumberland and
Durham*].)

* The pedestrian tunnel in (south end, anyway) Jarrow - which most even
locals don't even know is there - still has Northumberland | Durham set
into the tiles in its roof half way across.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I admire you British: when things get tough, you reach for humour. Not
firearms. - Sigourney (Susan) Weaver, RT 2017/11/4-10