Post by gandolf on Aug 11, 2008 6:22:00 GMT -5
Oops, indeed double oops.
Not only did I overlook an obvious alternative scenario for a possible connection for transmission of the Rosewall crock etc into the Curnows, but unintentionally re-ignited a debate on Thomas Curnow and his wife Catherine (family still to be confirmed).
Although I have now caught up on the discussions in other threads, not having the background on the family to be able to offer useful additions, I will leave alone the debate about Catherine's family name and likely dates of birth for her and Thomas Curnow. All I will say is that I was basing my information about dates, etc on some work by Zenobia (who I have found to be consistantly reliable in her research) rather than my own research.
Trencom exposed my blindness as to another source for the Rosewall crock and pan, which on consideration is possibly more likely than my initial thoughts.
By the way, I agree that while crocks and pans are regularly mentioned as bequests in wills, it is rare for items such as these to be noted with qualifiers such as a family name - more usual to see a reference to "my best pan".
As Trencom pointed out, Robert Curnow's mother-in-law Jane, wife of Peter Painter has not yet had her family identified.
Zenobia records that Peter Painter/Paynter married 26 Nov 1631 at St. Erth to Jane (surname not recorded). Peter Painter died 1671 at Towednack, and Jane Painter died 1678 at Towednack.
Given a marriage in 1631, both Peter and Jane were likely born between 1600 and 1610.
Now, with James Rosewall of Towednack born circa 1618, this puts Peter Painter's wife Jane of about the same generation.
The possibility therefore exists that Jane was perhaps an older sister of James, possibly born around 10 years earlier (say between 1607 and 1610).
If this was the case, it will still allow for Robert Curnow to have aquired the Rosewall crock and pan via inheritance, although in this case through his wife Catherine Painter, via her mother.
The only issue at first glance is, if they came in via his wife, why is Robert dispersing the goods when his wife is still living? Property law would explain it.
Even though Catherine (Painter) Curnow died in 1708, twenty years after Rober Curnow, property law of the time would have allowed him to disperse the crock and pan, since anything belonging to a married woman became the property of her husband. (Some exceptions to this in the case of land, which often only was able to be used by the husband, while still remaining the wife's inheritance.)
Other than the discussion (dispute?) as to the origin of Thomas Curnow's wife Catherine, the reason I am now leaning to the connection perhaps being through Peter Painter's wife Jane, is that it actually neatens up the potential relationship of Robert Curnow's sons to the Rosewall daughters.
In my original post, I had Robert and Michael Curnow as potentially 1st cousins once removed to Willmot and Margery Rosewall. On rechecking the relationship I realise that the proposed relationship should have been 2nd cousins once removed.
IF (and it is still a big if at the moment), Peter Painter's wife Jane was a Rosewall, and likewise if she was a sibling of James Rosewall then the relationship of the Curnow boys to the Rosewall girls becomes much more straightforward.
The Curnow boys would have been straighforward 2nd cousins to the Rosewall girls, a not uncommon relationship in marriages of that (and indeed more recent) eras.
Again, as I said in my original post, a lot to read into two words in one will!
Not only did I overlook an obvious alternative scenario for a possible connection for transmission of the Rosewall crock etc into the Curnows, but unintentionally re-ignited a debate on Thomas Curnow and his wife Catherine (family still to be confirmed).
Although I have now caught up on the discussions in other threads, not having the background on the family to be able to offer useful additions, I will leave alone the debate about Catherine's family name and likely dates of birth for her and Thomas Curnow. All I will say is that I was basing my information about dates, etc on some work by Zenobia (who I have found to be consistantly reliable in her research) rather than my own research.
Trencom exposed my blindness as to another source for the Rosewall crock and pan, which on consideration is possibly more likely than my initial thoughts.
By the way, I agree that while crocks and pans are regularly mentioned as bequests in wills, it is rare for items such as these to be noted with qualifiers such as a family name - more usual to see a reference to "my best pan".
As Trencom pointed out, Robert Curnow's mother-in-law Jane, wife of Peter Painter has not yet had her family identified.
Zenobia records that Peter Painter/Paynter married 26 Nov 1631 at St. Erth to Jane (surname not recorded). Peter Painter died 1671 at Towednack, and Jane Painter died 1678 at Towednack.
Given a marriage in 1631, both Peter and Jane were likely born between 1600 and 1610.
Now, with James Rosewall of Towednack born circa 1618, this puts Peter Painter's wife Jane of about the same generation.
The possibility therefore exists that Jane was perhaps an older sister of James, possibly born around 10 years earlier (say between 1607 and 1610).
If this was the case, it will still allow for Robert Curnow to have aquired the Rosewall crock and pan via inheritance, although in this case through his wife Catherine Painter, via her mother.
The only issue at first glance is, if they came in via his wife, why is Robert dispersing the goods when his wife is still living? Property law would explain it.
Even though Catherine (Painter) Curnow died in 1708, twenty years after Rober Curnow, property law of the time would have allowed him to disperse the crock and pan, since anything belonging to a married woman became the property of her husband. (Some exceptions to this in the case of land, which often only was able to be used by the husband, while still remaining the wife's inheritance.)
Other than the discussion (dispute?) as to the origin of Thomas Curnow's wife Catherine, the reason I am now leaning to the connection perhaps being through Peter Painter's wife Jane, is that it actually neatens up the potential relationship of Robert Curnow's sons to the Rosewall daughters.
In my original post, I had Robert and Michael Curnow as potentially 1st cousins once removed to Willmot and Margery Rosewall. On rechecking the relationship I realise that the proposed relationship should have been 2nd cousins once removed.
IF (and it is still a big if at the moment), Peter Painter's wife Jane was a Rosewall, and likewise if she was a sibling of James Rosewall then the relationship of the Curnow boys to the Rosewall girls becomes much more straightforward.
The Curnow boys would have been straighforward 2nd cousins to the Rosewall girls, a not uncommon relationship in marriages of that (and indeed more recent) eras.
Again, as I said in my original post, a lot to read into two words in one will!