Richard Noall and Mary Harry

[cledry]

Trying to sort out this couple. 

I have Richard Noall being bap on 23 Apr 1721 at St. Ives to John Noall jnr. and Prudence Quicke.

For Mary Harry there was one baptised 25 NOV 1728 to a Robert and Susan(a) and another 25 Oct 1719 to a William & Margaret.

I assume Mary Noall nee Harry died after 1762 when the last child was bap. There was a Mary Noall buried in 1762 but she is listed as a widow. I can't find a death for a Richard Noall prior to that date, so suspect not her.

Anyone else working on this couple?

[Cornish Terrier]

This family has produced a number of questions for which answers so far elude me also.

Identity of Mary Harry - currently not known but you may need to expand your thinking on this one to include Harris, Harries etc. I have come across a number of instances over the years where these and similar names were interchanged with Harry. It is also possible the record of Mary's baptism might be lost given she may have been born in one of the surrounding Parishes such as Towednack where records from about 1701 to 1720 are missing.

I do agree that Richard Noall was the son of John Noall and Prudence Quick but I also have not yet found a burial for him or for wife Mary. The 1762 burial could belong to one of a number of widowed Mary Noalls but there is another reason that I doubt it belongs to the wife of Richard. And that reason is that there appears to have been another child born after 1762 - a daughter Elizabeth who was buried at St Ives in 1765 and recorded as 'daughter of Richard Noall'.

For the moment that is all I can offer.

CT

[cledry]

Hmm? I don't see the Elizabeth you are talking about. I have Elizabeth Noall dau of Richard Noall buried 19 FEB 1761.

[cledry]

Ah, now I see her, 28 Aug 1765. Another that wasn't indexed.

[Cornish Terrier]

Yes, that's the one. She had to have been born no earlier than February 1761 and no later than about August 1761 OR sometime between about March 1763 and the date of her burial.

I have seen numerous instances where a child was baptised on or soon after the date of burial of a sibling of the same sex and given the name of that deceased sibling. So although I think it unlikely this scenario is mathematically possible.
However the fact that William and James were both baptised in May of 1762 (just 15 months after the first Elizabeth's burial) and the baptisms of previous children were all separated by at least two years I would tend to conclude that the second Elizabeth was born no earlier than 1763. That then certainly rules out the 1762 burial for mother Mary.

One further complication is that there is nothing in the record that actually states James and William were twins even though baptised on the same day.

CT