Post by Cornish Terrier on Jun 20, 2007 14:38:48 GMT -5
A few more details please about each party involved so that I might be able to help further. Extra detail may help via other records and information I have, or have access to. The old saying is 'every little bit helps' and it may be that you provide the catalyst to help link other (previously thought) random information.
Elizabeth Banfield, age 34, b. Gwennap, unmarried is living with her unmarried sister Mary Ann Banfield, age 36, also born Gwennap. Elizabeth has two children listed, 15 year old William Henry Banfield, b. St. Ives, and 7 year old James, b. Madron. They are in Lelant.
That is as far as I got before Ancestry 'broke' for the night...
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jun 21, 2007 10:25:58 GMT -5
HOUSTON - WE HAVE A PROBLEM!
Okay, Kids - let's take another look at this one as I have just found something that may cause some headaches.
Have just found the 1857 marriage at Lelant and it provides one 'helluva' lot of food for thought.
I will copy that entry as well as the entries both before and after so that I might illustrate a point:-
2 July 1857 by license John Nicholas full age farmer Uny Lelant (father: William Nicholas, farmer) Mary Sandow Quick 25 Uny Lelant (father: William Quick, farmer) Witnesses: William Quick, Amelia Quick
17 Aug 1857 by banns William Henry Thomas Banfield full age miner Uny Lelant (father: Henry Thomas, tin draper) Elizabeth Ann Sampson full age tin dreper Uny Lelant (father: John Williams, miner) Witnesses: Marianne Leacher, Thomas Richards
17 Nov 1857 by license William Sandow full age farmer Uny Lelant (father: James Sandow, farmer) Amelia Quick full age Uny Lelant (father: William Quick, farmer) Witnesses: William Quick, John Nicholas
And here is another to help illustrate the points I hope to make below:-
21 Dec 1856 by banns William Williams widower full age mine agent Uny Lelant (father: John Williams, laborer) Prudence Tippett widow full age Uny Lelant (father: Henrt Trevaskis, miner) Witnesses: Thomas Richards, Samuel Trevaskis
NOW - this is giving me a real headache and a few things need clarification.
One point is that I see mention of Elizabeth Ann Sampson WILLIAMS who then becomes Elizabeth Ann SELINA Williams.
And then - look at the above - we have another extremely interesting dilemma.
Wiliam Henry Thomas Banfield - interesting (not impossible) to see a name recorded thus. Most interesting point is that his father is recorded as HENRY THOMAS suggesting that William Henry was a THOMAS rather than a BANFIELD.
But then take a look at Elizabeth Ann!
She is recorded at marriage as Elizabeth Ann SAMPSON and her father is John WILLIAMS.
My reading of this would be that Elizabeth Ann was bn. WILLIAMS and was then widowed after having married a SAMPSON. Hence the naming of her father as John WILLIAMS.
The problem here is the fact that we have a similar problem with her 1857 husband - as far as the record is concerned.
I would appreciate some more feedback on this before I go much further because it seems there might be some 'wrong tracks' being taken.
Please give me more data to work from and I will see what I can do but it is all very confusing just now.
And I must also point out Zenobia's input regarding the 'unmarried' Elizabeth Banfield. Unless I missed something in translation I am thinking that this lot may be irrelevant to the scenario.
Please forgive me if I seem to be a little rude or abrupt here as that is certainly not the intention. However, there is enough here to suggest the likelihood of mis-conceptions and all sorts of confusing outcomes so I wish to try and 'un-muddy' the waters if I can.
Will await further feedback and work from there to find the solution.
It iwould appear form the above, and from the census entry I found in 1851 that William Henry, as well as his younger brother James, were illegitimate. William Henry must have known the name of his real father, hence the listing at his marriage.
Althought I have not yet looked into it, I would suggest that his bride may also have been illegitimate. If she was a widow it should have stated that.
I do have a case in my Pennsylvania family where a young man who was illegitimate married a young woman who was also illegitimate. Having grown up fatherless, they may have been drawn to each other by shared predicament...
I would suggest in the case of William Henry, that he must have had some sort of relationship with his father, since he knew his name and did list it on the marriage application - it could have been just as easy for him to make up say a 'John Banfield' otherwise. (I have also seen that done! )
Here are the pertinent census entries: Halsetown, St. Ives, 1841:
David Bamfield, head, age 65, tin miner Ann Bamfield, age 65 Cathn. Bamfield, age 25 David Bamfield, age 30, tin miner Mary Bamfield, age 25 Elizth. Bamfield, age 25 Wm. Bamfield, age 5
Balnoon, Lelant, 1851:
Mary Ann Banfield, head, unmarried, age 36, carrier, b. Gwennap Elizabeth Banfield, sister, unmarried, age 34, tin dresser, b. Gwennap William Henry Banfield, nephew, age 15, tin dresser, b. St. Ives James Banfield, nephew, age 7, b. Madron
Street an Garrow, St. Ives, 1861:
Elizabeth Banfield, head, age 47, unm., tin dresser, b. Camborne James Banfield, son, age 18, tin miner, b. Madron