Elizabeth HOPKINSON, 16861730 (aged 43 years)

Name
Elizabeth /HOPKINSON/
Family with parents
father
mother
Marriage Marriage9 May 1683Saundby, Notts
3 years
herself
16861730
Birth: 3 June 1686 21 22 Hayton, Notts
Death: 19 March 1730Hayton, Notts
-20 months
elder brother
16841736
Birth: 9 September 1684 20 20 Hayton, Notts
Death: 4 February 1736Hayton, Notts
Family with Thomas CUTTELL
husband
herself
16861730
Birth: 3 June 1686 21 22 Hayton, Notts
Death: 19 March 1730Hayton, Notts
Marriage Marriage27 September 1703Tilne, Hayton, Notts
12 years
son
2 years
daughter
17181721
Birth: 20 January 1718 35 31 Hayton, Notts
Death: 20 August 1721Hayton, Notts
3 years
son
17201722
Birth: 25 October 1720 38 34 Hayton, Notts
Death: 8 November 1722Hayton, Notts
-17 years
son
17041706
Birth: 2 June 1704 21 17 Hayton, Notts
Death: 11 February 1706Hayton, Notts
22 months
daughter
2 years
son
23 months
son
-22 months
son
Family with John Burtt
husband
herself
16861730
Birth: 3 June 1686 21 22 Hayton, Notts
Death: 19 March 1730Hayton, Notts
Marriage Marriage2 December 1723Hayton, Notts
John Burtt + Mary
husband
husband’s partner
Shared note

Born 3 June 1686 in Hayton, so she was 17 when she married Thomas Cuttell in 1703.
The marriage licence actually says she was 18, but that is close enough I think.
After his death in 1722, she re-married, to John Burtt 2 Dec 1723, who died 7 May 1729.
She died 19 Mar 1730 in Hayton. Note that the death entry records her as Elizabeth Cuttel, not Burtt. I agree with Catherine Stewart who suggests that this was in reality John Burtt's widow, that is "our" Elizabeth Hopkinson b1685.

Here is Catherine's argument (here she is discussing the two Elizabeth Hopkinsons, one the widow who marries Richard Cuttell in 1699, while the other is the spinster aged 18 who marries Thomas Cuttell in 1703):

"Maybe her (Elizabeth Hopkinson spinster) marriage to John was unhappy or maybe her children requested it, but it seems to be the most logical idea. Liz spinster was born in Hayton, married and buried two husbands in Hayton, had and buried children in Hayton, yet in 1729 she ups sticks for parts unknown as an aging woman whilst Liz widow, who had no known connection to Hayton other than living in Tiln in 1699 makes the effort to come from parts unknown to die there? I don’t think that is feasible, so I believe that Elizabeth “Cuttel” who died in 1730 is technically Burt, and that she is the spinster Liz Hopkinson, which would make sense if Richard and Liz the widow (who married in 1699) never moved to Hayton or lived there".