|
Post by Mal on Jun 9, 2010 12:48:39 GMT -5
Hello everyone,
I think I might have solved something here, I say might....!
For ages I have had a brickwall with Margery/Margaret Ustick, the widow who marries Thomas Woolcock. I had been looking for a Ustick marrying a Margery/Margeret thinking that Ustick was her married name- to no avail. Someone suggested to me that Ustick could have been her maiden name and when I tried this I came up with the following:-
30-Apr 1687 Just in Penwith, St. John BENALLACK Margery USTICK 30-Apr 1687 Ladock John Benallack Margery Ustick 30-Apr 1687 Ladock John BENALLACK Margery USTICK
This John Benallack is recorded as the son of Stephen.
The same year----
Burial
Parish: Ladock Date: 18-Nov 1687 Name: John BENALLACK ye son of Stephen Benallack
Next:- 05-Nov 1689 Just in Penwith, St. Thomas WOOLCOCK Margaret USTICK
If this is right it would mean that Margery Ustick were most likely the daughter of John Ustick and Marg. Shearme. It would also explain why Stephen Ustick was mentioned in some of the information connected to her. I also found that the name "Hugh", one of Margery's children by Thomas was in the Ustick family too, but I don't find it in Bennalack.
I have found a lot of stuff on the net and IGI from "unconfirmed" sources that seem to have missed this, I am right then a lot of genealogies out there might be wrong.
Does anyone have any information or opinion in connection to this? There are later baptisms at Ladock to a John, but how many Johns were there? It seems to me the evidence is pointing towards Margery Ustick being the widow of John. If they were married for such a short period and there were no children perhaps it would explain her keeping her maiden name?
Not "consumated" so to speak...
Any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by white on Jun 9, 2010 13:15:40 GMT -5
Mal, Like you I have wrestled with this problem formany years. I really think you may well have come up with the answer. Can I ask what are the items you mentioned that connect here to Stephen Ustick. I think a job well done, Roy psI have the Admon for Thomas Woolcock and have just noted that Stephen Ustick is mentioned there
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jun 9, 2010 13:22:52 GMT -5
Unfortunately I have to say that the problem is not solved. The marriage entry reads:- John Benallack, gent., of Ladock, & Margery dau. of John Ustick, gent. 30 Apr 1687 St Just in Penwith (Phillimore) No mention of John being son of Stephen but that can be checked later. Checking the OPC site and there are five children baptised to John Bennallack at Ladock:- Dorcas d/o John bp. 15th March 1688 John s/o John bp. 20th November 1689 Henry s/o John bp. 6th November 1690 John s/o John and MARGO? bp. 10th July 1694 Elizabeth d/o John and ?____ 9th June 1696 Margo? - possibly Margery? There certainly appear to be no children at St Just at least in the first couple of years after the marriage. John s/o Stephen Bennallack was baptised in 1687 (no dates specified) in 1687 according to the OPC and he was buried 18th November 1687 'ye son of Stephen Benallack'. (According to IGI there was a John s/o Stephen Bennallack bp. 30th November 1686 at Ladock) Margory wife of Stephen Benallack was buried 9th November 1736 at Ladock. But there was another Margery buried 7th September 1749 with no indication of relationships or age. Will have a look at the Margaret Ustick side of things now and see if I can find anything useful. CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jun 9, 2010 13:38:13 GMT -5
Finding a burial for the possible husband of Margaret Ustick might be a problem.
Given it appears she had children with Thomas Woolcock then I would expect the burial of her first husband to be within a few years of her marriage to Thomas.
Unfortunately this period at St Just has a number of unreadable entries.
In 1685 alone there is a batch of five in succession where apparently no names (or part thereof) could be read.
In 1687 there is one such entry.
Following a burial on October 31st 1678 is the following:-
"N.B. The record of Burials is missing until 1681"
The best hope here therefore might be to find a Will for that first husband.
Not having much luck here but I will pursue a couple of other ideas.
CT
|
|
|
Post by Mal on Jun 10, 2010 3:14:43 GMT -5
Dash it all!!!!
However the following opc Marriages - Details of record ID 511179- said son of "Stephen Benallack" so I went off that one.
There seems to be something funny with this one. The gaps in the record don't help either. I found the following (not all from OPC) John BENALLACK buried at Ladock 22 Mar 1704 John BENALLACK buried at Ladock 3 Jan 1729
Oh well, back to square one!
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jun 10, 2010 4:25:04 GMT -5
There is a question of where the Benallack marriage actually took place as I have just discovered. From Phillimore:- John Benallack, gent., of Ladock, & Margery dau. of John Ustick, gent. 30th April 1687 St Just in Penwith John, s. of Stephen Benallack, & Margery, d. of John Ustick, of St. Just in Penwith 30th April Ladock Note that both entries bear the same date. But looking at the OPC site it would appear that the event may well have occurred at Ladock as the OPC shows a reference to BTs. That does not really help the main problem as I found the previously posted information suggesting John and Margery were still baptising children at Ladock in 1694. Thinking!, thinking!, thinking!!! We are having difficulty in finding another possible marriage for Margaret 'X' to anyone named Ustick so how about we consider another little idea. What about the possibility that Phillimore has it wrong!! The Phillimore record shows that Margaret Ustick was a widow when she married Thomas Woolcock yet it appears that Thomas was still a bachelor. I have information which suggests that Thomas Woolcock was actually first married to Ann Noy 10th December 1683 at St Just. According to the information I received many years ago Ann was the daughter of Walter and Margaret Noy of Morvah. And just tonight I found this:- Ann wife of Thomas Woolcock buried 20th April 1689 at St Just So what if the record should read Thomas Woolcock, widower married Margaret Noy? Perhaps that is where the confusion comes in and Margaret was not a widow at all! That still has not helped me find a candidate for Margaret but it is certainly another consideration. Of course they may both have been widowed! CT
|
|
|
Post by Mal on Jun 10, 2010 6:52:53 GMT -5
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhha! I like that last idea and it would make sense and work. Like you showed the other day (CT) Philimores is not without error itself. I too have the first marriage to Ann Noy(e) but I hadn't spotted the fact that Thomas Woolcock was not described as a widower- infact the word I have noted is "relict". So far I have always been looking for a Ustick/Ustis/Eustace marrying a Margery/Margaret X and then passing away leaving a Widow Ustick. Then I tried the Margery Ustick one and came up with the Bennalack theory, which was good while it lasted! Ha ha. But this one would suggest Margaret Ustick (maiden name) married Thomas Woolcock. These records are all a bit weird, especially the Ladock - St Just ones. We have Margaret Usticks marrying Thomas Woolcock, John Bennalack, Marke Sampson Junior and John Lanyon. in the period 1687-1692. All of these Margarets seem to be connected to St Just. As far as baptisms go it's a bit sketchy... I'm going to see what I can find today....
|
|
|
Post by white on Jun 10, 2010 8:18:34 GMT -5
Mal, From several internet sources I have seen Margaret Ustick bapt.5th. March 1669-70 at St.Just. I have not found this entry to date.But IF she existed , she would fit the bill beautifully. Any thoughts on this, Roy
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jun 10, 2010 8:43:28 GMT -5
Roy - from the First Book of St Just etc.
Margaret daughter of John Ustick gent. and Margaret his wife baptised 5th March 1669 at St Just.
She was the second child of that name to John and Margaret and is believed to be the 'Margaret Ustick, gent.' who married Mark Samson at St Just in 1692.
CT
|
|
|
Post by white on Jun 10, 2010 9:28:25 GMT -5
CT
Thanks for that. Found it straigh away after your note, Roy
|
|
|
Post by Mal on Jun 10, 2010 10:19:32 GMT -5
Let's have a look here... Margery Ustick baptised 22 Aug 1663 to Martin Ustick & Jane Veale married John Lanyon 2 May 1691. Margery Ustick married Mark Sam(p)son Jnr St Just 25 Oct 1692. Margery Ustick d/o Jn. married Jn Bennalack 30 Apr 1687- Ladock/St Just (Have found double parishes with others before re Ludgvan- perhaps they recorded both parishes of bride and groom?) But also, Margery Vstis baptised to Richard Vsits and Mary 8 May 1664 at Constantine. There is also a Richard Eustace baptised to what appears to be the same couple in 1656 and Anne in 1651. Anne Vstis married 1684 to Peter Saundry at Constantine. Mary Vstis married 1680 to Robert Renfree at Constantine. These are the only Ustick/Eustace (you have to search separately) I can find at Constantine on IGI: It might suggest that this family were not from Constantine! No luck with Richard and Mary though! Looking for Richards it seems to lead back to St Just- but again a lot of unconfirmed sources and records and really it seems a bit mysterious. There must have been some connection with Stephen Ustick which would again bring us back to St Just- but just how beats me for the time being!!! I have a fear that like crop circles, Marilyn and JFK this is one of those we might not solve- largely due to missing records!
|
|
|
Post by lisab on May 8, 2014 20:36:42 GMT -5
In reply to the following. This John Benallack was an infant at his death. He was the son of Stephen Benallack and his wife Elizabeth. Stephen was brother to your John and wife Margery Ustick.
Born: John born 1687 at Ladock to Stephen and Elizabeth Benallack This couple had 9 children born at Ladock.
Burial: Parish: Ladock Date: 18-Nov 1687 Name: John BENALLACK ye son of Stephen Benallack
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on May 9, 2014 5:41:50 GMT -5
And after having now been able to check the Ladock Parish Register I can confirm the details of the last two children. In the case of John the mother's name is recorded as 'Margery' and with Elizabeth it is 'Margare'. I have also checked the St Just and other Parish Registers and can confirm that whoever it was married Thomas Woolcock could not have been the daughter of John Ustick, gent.
CT
|
|
|
Post by lisab on May 9, 2014 17:47:36 GMT -5
John and Margery had 9 children also: You should include Stephen 1692, Katherine 1698, Peter 1700, Nicolas 1702, Richard 1704. These children were first cousins to the 9 children of Stephen and Elizabeth Benallack as mentioned above ALL born Ladock. Both couples have repeated some names. The children of Stephen and Elizabeth are: Catherine 1694, Alice 1699, Alice 1691, Mary 1697, Stephen 1683, Robert 1684, John 1687, Jacob 1688, Elizabeth 1689. ALL born Ladock. I know of no other marriages for Margery Ustick John was her one and only.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on May 9, 2014 18:27:01 GMT -5
Yes, I agree. After working my way through the St Just and Ladock registers last night I have concluded absolutely that no daughter of John Ustick, gent. of St Just could possibly have married Thomas Woolcock. Margery married John Benallack and Margaret married Mark Sampson.
BTW - in a much earlier post I commented that there were two daughters to John Ustick with the name Margaret. After having a chance to view an image of the original register I have concluded that the earlier child is in fact MARYE. This name has been interpreted by all and sundry (and copied ad infinitum by everybody else) as MARGET (Margaret) however it is clear to me that some alteration has been made to make the name clearer with the fourth character being a 'Y'. After the 'Y' there is an 'e' followed by what might be called a 'smudge' that in some light appears to resemble 'tt'.
CT
|
|