Rachel Williams bpt 1773

[getafish460]

May need help with this one (no change there, then!)
Trying to make some headway with research into one Rachel Williams (bpt 1773) purportedly of St Ives but later found in Constantine where she got entangled with (or more properly made pregnant by ) one Edward Pryor, recorded as being from Budock.
I'm not sure if that is where he was baptised (in 1775) or where he was living when the illegitimate child, another Edward Pryor, was born in 1797. Edward (Snr) and Rachel never married (as far as I can tell) and I believe that one of the Edwards is recorded (upon his death) as coming from Goonhilly Downs, but that, again, may be where he was living at the time rather than the place of origin, and, alas, my records are a bit scant (and a bit of a mess, too)
Help appreciated, as always
Ted

[Cornish Terrier]

Ted - what information do you have (i.e. source) suggesting Rachel Williams was from St Ives?

The entry in the Constantine PR reads:-

(1797)
May 14th Edward Pryor bafe born son of Rachel Williams
sworn father Edward Pryor of Budock

You also indicate that Rachel was baptised in 1773 suggesting that you have further information.
I am going to pre-empt your probably answer and through a couple of things at you.

I would suggest that the 1773 baptism refers to:-

Rachell daughter of Clement and Rachel Williams baptised 29th August 1773 at St Ives

I will further suggest that your information possibly originated in an Online Family Tree!

Whatever the origins of that particular record I think I am in a position to tell you that the information about the connection between that baptism and the events at Constantine is WRONG!

Note:-

Rachel daughter of Clement and Rachel Williams baptised 27th April 1883 at St Ives

Rachel first married Job Stevens at St Ives 4th September 1803 and after she was widowed she then married Edward Geen at St Ives 14th February 1810.
This second marriage was witnessed by her brother Clement Williams who had married Catherine Honey at St Ives two years previously.

The earlier Rachel (bp. 1773) is therefore the Rachel Williams buried at St Ives 17th July 1779.

That, I believe, eliminates the St Ives connection.

But all is not lost!

I had a look at FamilySearch for any Rachel Williams born from 1765 to 180 to see what possible candidates we might have and it appears there were only two!

Having just eliminated Rachel from St Ives it then leaves just one possibility:-

Rachel daughter of Thomas and Magdalene Williams baptised 26th May 1776 at Budock

A much more likely candidate in many ways for the partner of Edward Pryor don't you think?

CT

[Cornish Terrier]

And a possility for Edward Pryor:-

Edward son of Thomas and Nora Prior baptised 12th July 1775 at Budock

Thomas Pryor and Nora Davis, both of Budock, were married 30th November 1772 at Budock

I have not been able to find Edward after the baptism or, more correctly, after the baptism of his son where he is recorded as the reputed father. That might indicate he was a mariner of some description or, possibly, found himself on the receiving end of the Magistrate's Ire!

CT

[getafish460]

Cheers CT
That makes far more sense, and probably explains the brick wall i came up against.
Barking up the wrong family tree, yet again!
thanks a million,
Ted

[getafish460]

In response, Like you, CT, i did a person/name search for the approx timescale for Rachel, only I must've missed the Budock connection. I think that you're elimination of the St Ives Rachel make much more sense.
I must commend you on your sources and records, you've got access to much more than I can hope to achieve (can only use the works computer and the military put too many restrictions on what you can and can't log onto)
If you wouldn't mind delving for me, when you've got a minute or two, do you have anything else on Thomas and Nora? Thomas in particular.
Help greatly appreciated
Kind regards
Ted

[Cornish Terrier]

Not sure that I can tell you a great deal at the moment but I have found a couple of things.

Firstly it appears that Edward was probably the only child. I can certainly find no others in the OPC database and likewise on FamilySearch.

And if this is the right person then we have an explanation for an only child:-

Nora PRYOR of Budock age 81 buried 12th October 1814 at Budock

That would put her birth around 1733 which means she would have been about 39 when she married.
There are two burials for Thomas Pryor/Prior at Budock after 1775:-

Thomas PRIOR of Budock age 77 buried 3rd May 1805 at Budock
Thomas PRYOR of Budock age 52 buried 5th November 1806 at Budock

Choice of births between about 1728 for the first and 1754 for the second.

I got to thinking a little more about the age of Nora and the fact there appears to have been just one child. According to the transcript of the Budock marriage in 1772 there is no mention of either Thomas or Nora being widowed. But just because it is not written does not mean that it weren't so!

Part of the reason I began thinking about this was because I could not find a baptism for Nora Davis but ...................
I decided to see if there might be any possible marriages for someone named DAVIS to anyone named NORA.

10th January 1764 Budock
Abraham DAVIS of Mawnan, husbandman, married Norah WILLIAMS of Budock by Licence
Witnesses - Wm. Box, Hugh Coplin

So Nora was previously married!
And that means there must be a good chance the same can be said for Thomas Pryor.

11th February 1765 Budock
Thomas PRYOR of Budock married Elizabeth PELLOWE of Budock by Banns
Witnesses - John Mitchell, Florence(?) Furniss(?)

I should think that would be a serious possibility. And an even better possibility with this:-

Elizabeth wife of Thomas PRIOR buried 23rd February 1772 at Budock age 50

And let's throw in something to add a little spice to proceedings!

Thomas Prior base son of Elizabeth Pellow baptised 26th June 1757 at Budock

His age would be out by about five years but we should consider the possibility that this is the Thomas Pryor buried at Budock in 1806 in which case he married someone named Alice and had several children at Budock up until 1802.

CT

[getafish460]

That's intresting!!??
so it would appear that Thomas 1 was father to Thomas 2 who was born iligitimate but Thomas 1 later married the mother (Elizabeth Pellow) and, seemingly, son (2) dies a year after father (1)
Thanks CT, let me know if you come across anything else, please? I'm going to root through this one.
Ted

[Cornish Terrier]

That's probably about as much as I can do for the moment as I only have limited resources in that area just now.
Hopefully that situation will improve but in the meantime just work your way through and around the information and let me know if you see anything else that I might be able to help with.

CT

[getafish460]

That's been a great help CT,
and a good kicking off point for yet another branch to the tree (although, only a twig yet!!)
Many thanks

Ted

[mialexa]

Could this Elizabeth Pellow(e) be the daughter of William Pellow and Mary Williams, born in Budock Feb 11, 1723? freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~peterscornishfamily/Pellow/The%20Pellow%20Family%20of%20Mabe/william_pellow_and%20ann.htm. William is my 7th great grandfather. Her age and area seem to be right. If anyone is related to the farmer side of the Pellows of Mabe, Budock, St Gluvias, Gunnislake, Mylor and st. Austell to Granite City and Enid Oklahoma, USA, I am happy to meet you.

[getafish460]

looking at my own charts, that would make him my 7th GG as well, if there is any connection, but as yet, my records don't stretch that far. One caveat to dating I will mention, if you're not already aware, in 1723 they used a different calendar to the one we currently use, therefore it is possible that a transcribed entry dated feb 1723 could be 1722 if the calendrical anomaly had not been taken into account, in either direction (ie. feb 1723 in real terms but 1722 on the parish register) (it was something to do with february being the last month of the year) Someone more knowledgeable than I will, no doubt, clarify if it was the Julian or the Gregorian calendar, but I can never decide which is which.
Keep hunting and good luck,
Ted

[Cornish Terrier]

In September 1752 the Julian Calendar was replaced in England by the Gregorian Calendar. Different Countries adopted the new calendar at different times with some being as late as the 1900s I believe.

From memory the change was required because it was finally worked out that there had been a miscalculation in the time it took for the Earth to revolve around the Sun. So the Calendar was out of sync with the Solar Year by one additional day every 128 years.
To correct this error it was calculated that 11 days would need to be removed from the Calendar.

I don't remember the exact date the change took place but I think it was around September 12th, 1752 at which time it became September 23rd.

But England was also quite late in changing. Pope Gregory originally decided on the new calendar in 1582 after reviewing a number of proposals that had been put before him. At that time only 10 days needed to be removed but by the time England decided to make the change it had become 11 days.

Also, up until that time the Year had commenced on March 25th and ended on March 24th but that was also altered so that the new year began on January 1st.

But it is more interesting to read about it all for yourself. And having just read a little further I discovered that I was 'almost' right with the change in England. In fact September 2nd 1752 was followed by September 14th meaning that the intervening dates (3rd through 13th) were removed.

And a look at one of the sites shows that Turkey was the last to change to the Gregorian Calendar in 1927!

But for some interesting reading just 'Google' for 'julian calendar' or 'julian and gregorian calendar' and you will find a number of articles giving all the explanations.

CT

[getafish460]

i knew if i dangled the bait "someone" more knowledgeable than me would be able to clarify things (and i knew it would be you, CT!!)
So I was fundamentally correct, minus a few details!!
I just recalled attempting to decipher some parish register original entries, and comparing them with the transcribed details that were already in my database, and noticing the anomalies.
Thanks for that snippit!
Regards
Ted

[Cornish Terrier]

Happy to oblige, Ted.

But I suggest that you use the dates as written in the Parish Registers when you have them and be very wary of information prior to September 1752 that you find in IGI/FamilySearch.

The reason I say that is because a lot of the information in IGI has already been 'doctored' to reflect the Gregorian Calendar and that has caused me many, many headaches over the years.

I always assumed that the dates in IGI would be as they appeared in the actual registers but unfortunately it is not always the case and it is impossible to tell which have been altered and which have not.

That little alteration can make a lot of difference when trying to piece together a family.

CT