|
Post by Zenobia on Sept 13, 2007 17:21:19 GMT -5
That's it - abuse and then My thinking is that, as in the case of James Trewheela's Will of 1764, "my now wife" seems to have emphasis on the "now" - meaning this is not a first marriage. In this case it has shown to be a third marriage. Taking into consideration James Trewhella's active marital history, I would suggest that he was not at all unaware of the possibility of him taking a fourth wife after writing his will... ;D Yes, the troubling part is that we have one Thomas girl named as 'now wife of' and another simply named 'wife of'. It is entirely possibly I may have left out the second 'now' when copying, so I need to check that. (I was planning a trip to the FHC tonight, but am without transportation again, so it will have to wait till next week). It is also possible that Henderson did not copy it correctly. Henderson uses countless abbreviations, and his handwriting is not the easiest to read, so this too is a possibility. However, a third thought occurred to me. Would the use of 'now wife' be sufficient in legal terms to only be needed once per document, the later 'wife of' then being understood? What causes me to wonder is that we had a similar experience with the 1670 will of Peter Painter. For Trencom's edification, in that nuncupative will, Peter's daughter Catherine is referred to as 'the now wife' of Robert Cornow, but his daughter Sibella, named shortly afterward is simply called 'the wife of' Mathew Stevens. We have never found any evidence of Robert having had an earlier wife, and his marriage to Catherine was not 'new' as they had been married at least 16 years by then. So why use the term in the first case, but not the second? So again, I am wondering if the use of the term in legal documents would then be inclusive of any later relationships of the same type found in the same document; ie: one only has to use it in the first instance to cover all the others?
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Sept 13, 2007 18:05:44 GMT -5
Trencrom wrote:
William I therefore may have been born say c. 1560, or even a year or two later, married c. 1580 and then fathered Henry. I also agree that you would then expect that Henry would have been his heir. And perhaps he was. However. while we know that Philippa was William's wife in 1599, do we know that she was also his wife in 1581? Alternatively, could the joint holding of William and Philippa of the land in 1599 indicate an enfeoffment with a subsequent reversion to a nominated person other than the common law heir? thus allowing the Lelant Edwards rather than the Ludgvans the inheritance of this particular land holding.
Assuming that William II was the younger (and not older) brother of Henry of Ludgvan, then it would be interesting to know where the main family holdings started out.
Thomas, who we are now assuming was the younger half brother of William I, held lands at Lelant, including The Abbey, and appears to have been seated there.
William I must have had some lands at Ludgvan, as his son (and presumably heir) Henry is chr. there and resides there all his life.
Could these have been the primary holdings for the Edwards family?
William II, besides inheriting the St. Dennis land, must have held at Lelant, since his branch of the family continued to reside there.
To show just how convoluted the landholdings among the branches of the family might be, here are a number of deeds which involve representatives of both branches:
All are from Henderson.
Vol. II, pg. 66, #51:
Fine, Octave of Hilary, 6 James I (1609) Tho Edwardes, gent & Henry Edwards, quer, Richd. Sutton Esq. & Elizabeth his wife def. 2 mes. 2 gardens 1 orchard 30 acres 6 meadow 20 pasture & 30 heath in Tregethas alias Tregiras, Rosevinney als Rosevinnie, Saynte Erth & Ludgvan
p. 67, #56:
11 James I (1614) 1 Sept - Licence of alienation to Tho Edwards gent to alienate 3 mes 1 garden 20 acres 3 meadow 20 pasture 9 wood & 10 heath in tregrethas als Tregethas & St. Earth which he holds in Capite to Francis Godlophin Esq.
p. 67, #57:
Fine - Octave of Hilary 12 Jas I (1615) Tho Edwardes gen & Jane his wife deforciants & Francis Godolphin Esq. queriant. The premises named in #56.
p. 71, #70:
24 March 1657 Henry Edwards of Lelant gent for L198 sells to Richard veale of Ludgvan gent all his lands in Rosevinny als Rosevidny in Ludgvan now in the tenure of James Tressurvian & Joane Green widow. Resurvey a lease 27 Feb 16 Chas I made by sd. henry Edwards to Sampson Greene decd. on lives of sd. Sampson Johan his mother & Christian his wife. Attornees Wm. Painter & Arthur Painter
p. 72, #72:
Fine Trin 1658 Richd. Veale gent & James Lose quer. Henry Edwards gent Wm. Honychurch gent & Mary his wife def. 1 mes. 2 gardens 30 acres 6 meadow 20 pasture 20 furze 6 moor in Rosevinny als Rosevidny Roscadwell Ludgvan & Madderne
pg. 223 #8 (H.C. 8)
1664 30 July Henry Edwards of Ludgvan gent, Wm. Hoskyn of the same yeman Richard Hoskyn of Ludgvan yeman being seized in fee of lands called Tregarthen als Tregerthan in Ludgvan they do make a full partition of the same in 3 parts (mentions Henry Edwards & his heirs)
Note in the first deed above of 1609, the Henry mentioned is too young to be Thomas' son, and if his father was past 90, so is presumed to be his nephew Henry of Ludgvan.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Sept 13, 2007 19:04:45 GMT -5
No problem -- I have ordered the older edition of Vivian in at the local library, they were not able to locate it today so I have asked for a second search to be done. The old letter to which I referred is very confusing. As I mentioned, it is dated 1887. On the page talking about the Edwards pedigree it references Harl. M.S. 1162, p. 139. But it distinctly refers to 'the portion printed in italics' - which of course would be Vivian's, and it also shows Vivian's additions of Francis, Arthur and Thomas. The letter goes on to talk about immediate ancestors in Devon, but claims a link with the Lelant branch and includes this statement: "A third cousin of ours Thos. Edwards (now a very old man) living at Colston near Buckfastleigh distinctly recollects seeing 'Lelant' written in a Book of his father's and also hearing it said that the Devonshire Family had come from 'Lelant' " The letter is full of inaccurate suppositions, such as "Grymes of Devonshire" refers to the family of Grymelles (it is actually Crymes), and that Francis Edwards might be the Devon progenitor (in reality Francis never married and died in Lelant). I am intrigued by the possible Devonshire connection, however, and wonder whether one of Henry (1660)'s brothers (Thomas or Benjamin) may have migrated that way, or if maybe Henry's namesake grandson (son of his decd. son Thomas, who did reside in Devon) may have gone back there.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Sept 14, 2007 2:45:52 GMT -5
Assuming that William II was the younger (and not older) brother of Henry of Ludgvan, then it would be interesting to know where the main family holdings started out. Thomas, who we are now assuming was the younger half brother of William I, held lands at Lelant, including The Abbey, and appears to have been seated there. William I must have had some lands at Ludgvan, as his son (and presumably heir) Henry is chr. there and resides there all his life. Could these have been the primary holdings for the Edwards family? I was starting to wonder about this too. William I and/or his brother Stephen were clearly the senior line of the family, so if Henry was Williams eldest then it may be that the Lelants overall are the junior lines. (Thomas' line certainly was, or course) William II, besides inheriting the St. Dennis land, must have held at Lelant, since his branch of the family continued to reside there. Agreed. here are a number of deeds which involve representatives of both branches ....... Note in the first deed above of 1609, the Henry mentioned is too young to be Thomas' son, and if his father was past 90, so is presumed to be his nephew Henry of Ludgvan. Agreed: this earlier Henry has to be the Henry Edwards senior of Ludgvan -- too late to have been Thomas' father, who was probably deceased by this time anyway. It would be interesting to know whether the St Dennis property came to the Edwardses via Philippa, or else through previous generations of the Edwards family.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Sept 16, 2007 21:53:45 GMT -5
Here is the way I have now laid them all out date-wise - let me know what you think:
A. Henry Edwards 1516-post 1593
....1. William Edwards ca. 1558-1644/5 m. Philippa _____
.....a. Henry Edwards 'of Ludgvan' 1581-1654 m. Alice ______
..........1) Richard Edwards ca. 1609-1635/6 m. Lowdie ______
...............a) Henry Edwards 1631-? ...............b) Frances Edwards 1631 ...............c) Jane Edwards 1633
..........2) Mary Edwards ca. 1611 m. Richard Michell
......b. William Edwards ca. 1590-bef. 1650 m. Sedwell Thomas
...........1) John Edwards ca. 1615-aft. 1669 m. Alice _____
................a) Mary Edwards ca. 1636 m. John Penberthy .................b) William Edwards ca. 1638-1703 m. Dorcas Eva .................c) Sedwell Edwards ca. 1640-1695 m. Thomas Thurleby
.......c. Frances Edwards ca. 1595-? m1) Nicholas Remfrey m2) John Harry
...2. Stephen Edwards ca. 1560
...3. Thomas Edwards 1564-post 1629 m. Jane Roscrudge
........a. Jane Edwards ca. 1598 ........b. Henry Edwards 1600-1678 m. Mary Crymes
.............1) Arthur Edwards 1625-1716
.................a) Thomas Edwards 1667-aft 1685 dvp .................b) Gertrude Edwards ca. 1669-1725 m. Andrew Hosking
.............2) Francis Edwards 1627-1702 .............3) Thomas Edwards ca. 1629-1661 m. Joane Sowton
..................a) Mary Edwards 1654-? m. Alexander Bandfield ..................b) Henry Edwards 1656-d.y? ..................c) ____ Edwards 1659
.............4) Jane Edwards ca. 1632 m? .............5) Margaet Edwards ca. 1635-1720? ?m. John Leacher? .............6) Elizabeth Edwards ca. 1637 .............7) Agnes Edwards ca. 1640-1704
.........c. Anne Edwards ca. 1603 m. John Lanyon .........d. Thomas Edwards 1607-? .........e. Margaret Edwards ca. 1609 .........f. Prudence Edwards 1611-1685/6 .........g. Benjamin Edwards 1613-?
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Sept 16, 2007 22:50:46 GMT -5
That's pretty much as I see them right now, too. Would that be 1560 for Stephen though? I don't seem to have anything on the Mary who married John Penberthy -can you fill me in on this please?
Do you have access to Stoate's published Tudor taxes and muster roll of 1569? I had a quick peek the other day and could not find any Edwards at either Lelant or Ludgvan. Checked a few of the adjacent parishes without much luck either. Would not expect to find William or Stephen in the same but Henry should have been in the muster roll......
Does he appear in any of the Lelant subsidies?
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Sept 18, 2007 14:24:10 GMT -5
That's pretty much as I see them right now, too. Would that be 1560 for Stephen though? Ooops! I knew my dyslexia would rear its head somewhere... I will fix it. Thomas Thurleby in his will mentioned two brothers-in-law John Penberthy of Carveena in Lelant and James Bennatts of Penzance, who were to serve as executors if his wife should remarry. The usual procedure in a case like this was to choose one relative from the husband's family, and one from the wife's. Now James Bennatts had a wife named Christian, and the will of Thomas Thurleby's father names a daughter Christian, so this is very likely to be Thomas sister who is married to James Bennatts. John Penberthy died in 1690, leaving a wife Mary and son Stephen. Since Thomas did not have a sister named Mary, she is presumed to be the sister of Sedwell. Of course there are a number of other scenarios - John Penberthy's wife Mary could be a second wife, or John himself could be a step-brother of either Thomas or Sedwell, but I went with the premise that seemed most likely. Very odd. I know that Henry served as a yeoman of the guard or some such, as he had a lawsuit for some money owing him. I need to get a copy of that one. The only ones I have are the ones printed in Matthew's. 1549 shows "her' Edward" - presumably "heirs of Edward" and no one else shows up until William in 1585.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Sept 19, 2007 0:33:43 GMT -5
I double-checked Henderson today and the deed mentioning the two Thomas girls and Henderson's version was as I listed it earlier, with the word 'now wife' in the one case, but not in the second.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 19, 2007 12:58:03 GMT -5
Start with the earlier version (which should be much more contemporary) and work from there - would be my suggestion. The version that is closer to the actual event should, one would think, be the more accurate given that the iinformation is much more 'fresh'. (Unless some little 'porky pies' were involved for some reason. )
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Sept 20, 2007 22:56:35 GMT -5
Do you have access to Stoate's published Tudor taxes and muster roll of 1569? I had a quick peek the other day and could not find any Edwards at either Lelant or Ludgvan. Checked a few of the adjacent parishes without much luck either. Would not expect to find William or Stephen in the same but Henry should have been in the muster roll...... Very odd. I know that Henry served as a yeoman of the guard or some such, as he had a lawsuit for some money owing him. I need to get a copy of that one. Looked at 1569 muster roll for Lelant, Ludgvan, Gulval, St Erth, St Ives and Phillack --no Edwardses. A Benet Edwards was at Towednack and a Mychell and a John at Gwithian. Also saw 1524 and 1545 subsidies for Lelant, St Erth and Ludgvan --again nothing, although two surnames in the Ludgvan list are evidently obscured. Unfortunately I did not have time on the day in question to check any other parishes for either kind of record. Not sure what to conclude here -- my first reaction was to wonder if this indicates that the Edwards family came to the Lelant area from elsewhere? But they must have been there by 1569! Hence does this therefore mean that Henry was working well away from home and hence recorded wherever he was at the time? As I understand it, the muster was supposed to list all able-bodied men aged between 16 and 60, so Henry should be there .... somewhere .....
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 21, 2007 12:30:36 GMT -5
Just a thought. Is it possible that Henry Edwards was not "able-bodied" and was therefore exempted from Muster Roll.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Sept 21, 2007 19:57:39 GMT -5
Just a thought. Is it possible that Henry Edwards was not "able-bodied" and was therefore exempted from Muster Roll. No, Henry served as Yeoman of the Guard sometime before 1558. Whether he was in Lelant at the time of the Muster Roll is unknown, but his wife was present there sometime between 1566-1569 when she sued the Vicar for defamation.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 22, 2007 11:06:44 GMT -5
OK - we are talking Henry bn. about 1516 In which case he would have been about 42 in 1558 at 'around the time' he served as a 'yeoman of the guard'. But we are then talking about the Muster Roll of 1569 - some nine years later. In the intervening years is it not possible something may have happened that denied him of his 'able-bodied' status. He would also have been about 53 by this time. Just something more for you to think about.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Sept 23, 2007 5:29:18 GMT -5
cornish terrier: That thought occurred to me too, and as Zenobia says with his wife resident in Lelant in 1566-9 and then described as his wife (so he was clearly still living) the family were clearly in Lelant by that date, even if for the sake of argument they moved there only after the 1543 subsidy (in which no Edwards appear in the parish in question). So perhaps this does indicate that he was incapacitated in some way?
Zenobia: can you eleborate please on him being a yeoman of the guard?
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 23, 2007 11:03:47 GMT -5
Thanks for your concurrence Trencrom. It is at least something worth considering and I will await the next from Zenobia on this subject. I have stayed out of this discussion on most occasions because it is not a family, nor an era, that I know enough about. However - there are times that I look through some of this information and 'have some thoughts' that I will throw into the mix. ;D
|
|