Page 1 of 1

James F Wright Marriage

Posted: 06 Apr 2013 21:35
by sue317
Hi, I'm new to this please bear with me. I've hit a brick wall with finding the marriage of my Great Grandfather James F WRIGHT to Elizabeth ? possibly HODSON, HUDSON, HODG(E)SON or a married name of HANDLEY. James has an approximate birth year of 1877 in Southport. In the 1901 census he is lodging with Robert and Elizabeth HANDLEY (m 1893) and their children Thomas, Ernest and Phyllis in Liverpool. In 1911 James F is with an Elizabeth and Ernest, Phyllis, Annie, James, Emily and Evelyn in Aston, Birmingham. Emily is my Grandmother she married Edward DEEBANK in 1933.

Robert HANDLEY had married again in 1903 to a Margaret McDONALD. I've not been able to find any divorce for the HANDLEYS or death for Elizabeth.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Sue Deebank

Re: James F Wright Marriage

Posted: 06 Apr 2013 21:56
by Hilary
Divorce was expensive - it's more likely they just moved away and said they were married. They may have married later in life.

Re: James F Wright Marriage

Posted: 06 Apr 2013 22:15
by Hilary
James F Wright was born James Frederick Wright in 1878 in Southport. http://www.lancashirebmd.org.uk gives the mother's maiden name as Crook. His brother Hugh was born in 1879.

Hugh Wright married Annie Crook at St Andrew's church Southport in 1878

In 1881 Annie and her sons Frederick and Hugh are boarders at 76 Linaker Street Southport she is listed as a fishmonger's wife

1891 the family are at 87 Cemetery Road Southport. Hugh 33 a fishmonger born Southport, Annie M 31 born Manchester, James F 12, Hugh 11, Harold 8 and Elsie 5 months. They have a servant Emma Henderson 42 born in Liverpool.

You'll find christenings for some of them on Ancestry. Harold was christened at St Paul on 3 Dec 1882 born 12 August 1882. Home address 150 Shalespeare Street. Earlier that house was associated with my family!!!

Re: James F Wright Marriage

Posted: 06 Apr 2013 22:29
by Bertieone
There was a child born 1915, Aston.

Horace J Wright,
Mothers maiden name, Hodson.

Aston 8d 880,

Re: James F Wright Marriage

Posted: 06 Apr 2013 22:46
by Bertieone
Robert William Handley married Elizabeth Hodgson,
West Derby 1893, 8b 843,

If Horace J is the child of James Wright and Elizabeth, perhaps the G has been missed out by error from Hodson or deliberately trying to hide something.

Re: James F Wright Marriage

Posted: 07 Apr 2013 06:50
by Bertieone
Marriages.
St Nathaniel, Edge Hill, 1893.
Robert William Handley, 21, Bach, Horse Helper?, Father, Thomas Handley, Deceased, Farmer.
Elizabeth Hodgson, 21, Spinster, Father, Robert Hodgson, Police Inspector.


St Peter, Everton, 1903,
Robert Handley, 44, Bach, Engine Driver, Father, Robert Alexander Handley, Labourer
Margaret McDonald, 40, Widow, Father, David Lister.

Not the same Robert Handley.

Re: James F Wright Marriage

Posted: 07 Apr 2013 07:56
by Bertieone
1911,
3 Riddock Rd, Litherland

Robert William Handley
39, Car Driver
Margaret Handley
34
Harold Handley5
Evelyn Handley
3
Noel Handley
Under 1
RG 14 Piece 22342
In 1911, Robert William is married to or living with a Margaret, declares 8 years married,

Re: James F Wright Marriage

Posted: 07 Apr 2013 14:24
by sue317
Hello,

Thank you for the replies. A bit more info.

On the 1911 census James F and Elizabeth had been married 15yrs taking it back to 1896 which clash's with the 1901 census with James F is a lodger with Robert and Elizabeth Handley :?

Also on my Grandmother(Emily) birth cert it states that she was born Nov 1906 at 4 Meliden Road, Edge Lane, West Derby. but the address of the informate is Mother Elizabeth (nee Hodson) 273 Aston Church Road Saltley Birmingham.

Yes Horace J was one of their children born abt 1915.

Thanks again
Sue

Re: James F Wright Marriage

Posted: 07 Apr 2013 14:49
by Bertieone
On the 1911 census, James and Elizabeth would have to say they were married 15 years to save any embarrassment , having got a 14 year old child living with them, even though from a previous marriage, they are declaring they are a married couple. It doesn't appear they were.