No, I don't know George's age, it's not apparent in the sparse documentation I have of him. He's described as "of full age" in the transcript of his wedding to Eliza in September 1842.
I had found a possible burial:
Record_ID: 88184
Entry_Number: 12
Year: 1843
Month: Oct
Day: 8
Surname: TAYLOR
Forenames: George
Residence: Joyford
Age_at_death: 53
Officiating_Minister: T.R.Garnsey
Event: Burial
Cause_of_death:
Memoranda:
Notes:
Register_Reference: P82 IN 1/13
Page_No: 2
Parish_Chapel: Christchurch
- but on reflection, this George is quite a lot older than Eliza, and anyway, the newspaper article referred to by Mike Pinchin in his recent posting would suggest that George didn't follow Eliza to Joyford after all, and either George was awol from Eliza, or Eliza was awol from George!
It's unfortunate there's no corresponding inquest to this deathto give some more details.

I concede that the 1851 census notes Eliza as "U"nmarried, not "W"idowed - although it's clear that she had multiple marriages over time. Maybe in 1851 she just considered herself to be "between" marriages? I'm nevertheless convinced that this is our Eliza due to the presence of the three children.

Mike - I was unaware of this newspaper report, and it certainly throws the cat among the pigeons!
I managed to find a report (on www.FindMyPast.co.uk) in the Hereford Journal of 5th April, which goes into greater detail of the case, and seems to portray Eliza in a somewhat more sympathetic light:

HEREFORDSHIRE SPRING ASSIZEZ, 1843
TRIAL OF PRISONERS (before Sir Wm. Wightman) -Thursday, March 30

CURIOUS CHARGE OF BIGAMY.- Eliza Taylor was charged with bigamy, she having married, on the 24th September, 1842, at the parish of Penalt, in the county of Monmouthshire, George Taylor, and also having married on the following 1st of November, 1842, at the parish of Welsh Newton, in the county of Hereford, Edward Jones; her former husband, Geo. Taylor, being then living. Mr Smithy, on behalf of the prosecutor, called Francis Crossman, constable, who stated that he went to Penalt church, and examined a certificate, from which he took a copy; he also went to Welsh Newton, and took a copy; afterwards apprehended the prisoner on the 18th of November at Whitchurch, on the charge of bigamy. It appearing that the witness could not prove that the copies he had taken were exactly similar to those in the register books, his lordship refused to admit them as evidence, and stated that he should not allow the attorney his expenses. - James Reynolds, parish clerk of Penalt, was next examined. He remembered the prisoner being married to George Taylor on the 24th of September, and that the banns were regularly published; the prisoner gave her name as Eliza Cutter, widow. - The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Skinner. He stated that he did not know Jones, nor did he know Taylor before the day of the marriage. - James Silvester, clerk of Welsh Newton, deposed that on the 1st of November Edward Jones was married to Eliza Cutter, as a widow, by banns, which were duly published. - Cross-examined: Did not know the prisoner before that time, neither did he know Jones before he brought the banns to him (witness) to have them published; knew well that George Taylor was living at the time the prisoner was apprehended. - By the Judge: Had known George Taylor eight or ten years; heard him accuse the prisoner at Monmouth before the magistrates, of being married to him before she was to Jones, but would not swear to the exact words uttered upon that occasion. - Mr Skinner addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, after which his lordship summed up in a very clear manner, observing that the present case was a very singular one, inasmuch as it appeared that only six weeks had elapsed from the prisoner's marriage with Taylor to the time of her being married to Jones; that the principal portion of the testimony rested on a person named Taylor, who charged the prisoner with being his wife, but that the person was not in court, and that the great point was whether there was not a mistake as to the identity of the prisoner. - The jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of Not Guilty. - The prisoner, who appeared to belong to the humbler class, but was respectably dressed, had been admitted to bail; what makes the case more singular is, that only three weeks could have elapsed between the first marriage and the publishing the banns (sic) for the other.

Was Eliza a scheming manipulator? A wronged woman who felt she had no choice? An unfortunate victim of circumstances beyond her control? Or was this a genuine case of mistaken identity?

It's interesting to note the difference in tone between the Hereford Journal report, and that of the Gloucester Journal. The former makes no mention of Eliza's age, so can we rely on the "38" stated in the latter?

Certainly the LDS transcript of the marriage of Edward Jones and Eliza Cutter looks convincing (it's almost as if she's convinced the marriage to George Taylor never happened!) - it's a shame that the bride's father's occupation isn't stated. William Jones was a bargeman in Eliza's marriage to George Taylor (1842) and to John Harris (1857). Maybe the occupation is noted in the parish register, but wasn't transcribed by LDS? (Their transcriptions seem sometimes to concentrate on what they consider to be important, and to sometimes ignore "ancillary" information.)

In Eliza's marriage to John Harris, she states her name to be Eliza Taylor, effectively discounting her marriage to Edward Jones.
The validity of this marriage is certainly questionable. The rule of Double Jeopardy would prevent Eliza from being re-tried for bigamy, so presumably either Edward Jones had died by this time, or his marriage to Eliza had been annulled in some way because of the pre-existing marriage to George Taylor.

I've done a quick search in www.welshnewspapers.llgc.org.uk to see if I could find a report of George's apparent appearance before the magistrate in Monmouth accusing Eliza of bigamy - without success.

I agree that the parentage of the Taylor children is now brought into question. Maybe they were born out of wedlock, and merely took on Eliza's name of TAYLOR. (Although why she retained the surname Taylor, and didn't use JONES, is something I suppose we'll never know.)