|
Post by Zenobia on Sept 23, 2007 20:39:55 GMT -5
Here is the catalogue entry: I have not sent for it yet, as I am broke... C 1/1348 Henry EDWARD of Lelant, yeoman of the Guard, v. Alice, late the wife of John TREVISSA of the Guard, deceased, and administratrix of his goods.: Complainant's pay received by the said Trevissa from the paymaster of the Guard and the clerk of the check.: MIDDX., CORNW. I was off a bit on the date - it says 1553-1555.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Sept 24, 2007 13:26:27 GMT -5
Hmmmm...
If you look at Azenor's post on the Muster Roll on the Towednack board, it says it was a muster for tinners age 15-65... Is that true? It would explain why no Edwards were on it....
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 24, 2007 14:35:59 GMT -5
I would rephrase that to 'could'. Yes, there were 'Tinner's Muster Rolls' as I understand it but, to be honest, I do not recall when they were taken. However, if you take a closer look at Azenor's note you will see that her concentration is on the later 18th Century which, by far, is beyond the limit if enquiry regarding the Edwards of the 1500's. Forgive me if I am incorrect, but I believe the 'Tinner's Muster Roll 'was brought in much later and probably into the 18th Century. Do not have the wherewithall to check on it right now.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Sept 24, 2007 18:09:52 GMT -5
Oooops! The date totally went by me... I am still rather under the weather, so am not functioning very intelligently right now...
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 25, 2007 11:08:47 GMT -5
The opening is there for me to say something ........... ;D But I won't. You are excused. I believe I have 'something' in my books here somewhere that might clarify the problem here regarding the Tinner's Muster but .... However, I am pretty near sure these Rolls were much later and more in the 18th Century. If I find something of help (whilst packing etc.) I will let you know.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Sept 25, 2007 22:12:10 GMT -5
I can't say that I am all that familiar with tinners' musters per se, but I should point out that the muster of 1569 that I referred to earlier was not that kind of muster, as each man is described with whatever weapons he had in his possession, such as bows, armour etc. It also includes several gentry figures who are named therein under their respective parishes.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 26, 2007 15:13:41 GMT -5
I will try to find something more about the 'Tinner's Muster Rolls' so that we might clarify things. It seems I have been slightly incorrect. Had a quick search of some of my books, even rang cousin Nancy and could come up with no 'absolute' answer to the question of the 'Tinner's Muster'. So, just to embarrass myself , I tried the 'new-fashioned method' Internet - Google - Search - "tinner's muster" And it is during this search that I found items referring to Tinner's Muster Rolls as far back as about 1520. There does, however, seem to be a difference between this and the 'regular Muster' that we know. Herewith an extract:- And another interesting item from a list of 'available lookups' for Cornwall from the OPC site:- So, given I was wrong, I was right. The Tinner's Muster was separate to the Muster we all know but the only problem I had was I thought it came later rather than being concurrent with the 'normal' Muster Roll. Not quite sure how this helps with the Edwards clan - but it is useful in any case.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Sept 29, 2007 6:45:48 GMT -5
Zenobia: Finally got to sight the earlier edition of the visitations today for Edwards --- no mention of either William or Stephen being ob sine prole.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Oct 15, 2007 19:18:33 GMT -5
Zenobia: Finally got to sight the earlier edition of the visitations today for Edwards --- no mention of either William or Stephen being ob sine prole. I didn't think so.... So where does this put us? I really like your William/William/John scenario, and it would still be nice to get rid of that pesky other William that Thomas allegedly named as a brother... - could it have been a mistake on the part of the herald, or even of Vivian or his editor?
|
|