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.