John
It all sounds a bit too complicated,I would love Angela T's take on the issue ?.
Kind regards Brian.

Now my head's spinning!

I've ordered Lydia HOUGH's death certificate (Mar Q 1856 Wortley 9c 99) which might at least confirm she was married to one of the Phillip HOUGHs.

I'm moving to the conclusion that maybe Charles was adopted, as several hours of searching across a number of sites has failed to find a birth for him. I don't suppose such records are kept anywhere?

Have you looked for a baptism for Charles (the Lydia's maiden name) could be Charles was born out of wedlock and took up the name Hough when Lydia married Philip. John

Yes, have tried both Charles COE and Charles SHEPHERD but nothing on Familysearch or Ancestry, nor on the Wortley baptisms on this site.

I've now got Charles HOUGH's death certificate. He died at Wortley 11 May 1867 aged 64 years, from "softening of the brain, paralysed'. The person who was the informant looks like he might have been the doctor, and ther's no mention of a wife. If this is the right chap then it puts his birth back to about 1802, five years earlier than the 1851 census would suggest.

Got the death certificate for Lydia HOUGH today. She died 18 January 1856 at Wortley, aged 89 years (so the Lydia COE baptised 9 Nov 1766 mentioned above would be spot on). She died from "decay of nature" (which I think I have too!) and is the widow of Philip HOUGH.

Charles HOUGH was present at the death.

I think the best explanation goes like this: Charles was born around 1802, before they were married, although we can't find a baptism. They married in Tankersley on 2 Feb 1806. Charles may have started using his father's name after the marriage (I've found a similar situation with another branch of the family). It also means she was 36, rather than 42, when Charles was born, so I think we can rule out the mother or grandmother complication.

I'm still not totally comfortable with where if anywhere the Philip HUFF/Lydia SHEPHERD marriage fits in, but I'll keep digging!

The age Discrepancy for Charles Hough's birth might have been to mke his birth date fit in to - after the 1806 marrage date,rather than have him show as born out of wedlock.
Kind regards Brian.

Does the death certificate say where in Wortley Charles Hough died? I also wonder if they took his age on the census from the date he was baptised (was this after 1806?) Is it possible that he left a will? Like you still trying to fit in the Philip Hough to Lydia Shepherd marriage. Time to get the scrap paper out and do a rough drawing of your tree to see if it makes it easier to solve. John

John there was nothing on death certificate except Wortley

I've done some more digging on Familysearch, and some thinking...

It seems there were a number of children born to an apparently single Lydia COE. These were all christened COE at Wortley (no mention of father):

George 1790, Mary 1792, Martha 1794, Joseph 1798, Elizabeth 1803.

At more or less the same time, also in Wortley, Philip HOUGH or HAUGH had the following children (no mention of mother):

John 1794, Ann 1797, Benjamin 1799, Sampson 1804, David 1811.

I think that means that there were definitely two families. Perhaps the ones to which Philip laid a claim were those from his marriage to Lydia SHEPHERD in Tankersley on 8 July 1793.

The children that Lydia COE had could have been to
(a) an unknown father
(b) the Philip HOUGH she later married at Tankersley on 2 Feb 1806, who may or may not have been the same Philip HOUGH who had earlier married Lydia SHEPHERD. Perhaps Lydia COE was his mistress? Perhaps they married after Lydia HOUGH nee SHEPHERD's early death, some time before 1806? (and therefore all of the children born after this were in fact Lydia COE's children). Or it could have been a totally different Philip HOUGH she married?

Unfortunately, without any definitive supporting info that's as far as I can go. None of the Philip HOUGHs (if in fact there was two of them) appear to have survived to the 1841 Census. Nor can I find a death of a Lydia HOUGH (nee SHEPHERD) to support the "one Philip HOUGH" theory.