Dave,
Completely agree about being missing off three census records is strange. I assume that missing pages have been ruled out.
Was Lucy definitely born a Coleman or could even Richard have been born a Coleman and there was something strange going on especially if they were blood related.
Could the family have not agreed to the marriage etc or and I think this is more likely they were both criminals of some sort and did not want the authorities to find out.
I wonder if the quarter sessions are on line somewhere in case that they had served a punishment of some sort but now thats done with wanted to lie low.
Hazel et al.
Just a hint of a hope on the ID of Richard Potter who appears on only one census (1861) and for whom we have no death.
There is a Richard Potter born 1815 in Thornton le Clay (north east of York, south west of SCARBOROUGH. His father was called John.
He married in 1840 to very pregnant Sarah Oates and their daughter Lois was born shortly after. They are on the 1841 census in Flaxton, north of York.
They had a second child (boy) called Oates in 1843.
Both Lois and Oates died in a 3 month period in 1847 and in 1849 their daughter Henrietta was born and the family is in Flaxton in 1851 census.
In the 1861 census Sarah and Daughter Henrietta are still in Flaxton, Sarah is Married, but HER HUSBAND RICHARD IS MISSING. Could he have abandoned her and gome to Sheffield and (bigamously) married Lucy Coleman?, We know that Lucy and Richard lost the 2 children they had and there was Lucy's illegitimate daughter who would need to live with them in 1867. Did he abandon her and go back to Sarah in Flaxton?.
If this is true then he would have reason while in Sheffield to lay low and conceal his origins
In 1871 he is back in Flaxton with his wife and daughter and also in 1881. He died in Flaxton in 1884.
The elephant in the room on this is the Richard Potter who is on the Burgess Rolls in Sheffield in 1875/6 at 1 court 2 Cross Love Street. Note that Lucy Potter died at 2 Court 1 Cross Love Street in 1882. That is a different address. Cross Love Street had 2 rows of four houses, 1 3 5 7 and 2 4 6 8 There were 2 courts, one behind each row.
In 1881 at 2 Court 1 was a Mills family, so Lucy was not yet in that address.
In order to be on the Burgess Rolls after the Second Reform Act of 1867 a common working man had to satisfy 3 criteria:
1. He had to be head of a household
2. He had to be paying rent of more than £10 per year
3. He had to apply to be a voter.
There was a Richard Potter, brick maker, living in the area. He was more likely to be the 1875/6 Burgess Rolls man. I cannot believe that a Fish Hawker would apply to be a voter.
All this is possible. I can find nothing to disprove that Richard Potter born 1815 in Thornton le Clay was in Sheffield for a period between 1851 and about 1867. But of course I cannot prove he was.
Dave
In 1861 theres a Richard Potter, born 1816 Thornton le Clay, Shepherd, Married, living as a lodger in a farm in Bossall (close to Flaxton).
Given that in 1841 and 1851 Richard Potter married to Sarah is an Agricultural Labourer, not a stretch to then be down as a Shepherd - could this Richard be the same - lodging away from Sarah for whatever reason?
Denise, thank you. That is the piece which disproves my theory. I would have found that if I had searched on Ancestry instead of FMP.
Back to square one.
I am still confident that the Richard Potter of Burgess Rolls 1875/6 was not the one who married Lucy Coleman.
Dave