|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 28, 2009 0:41:12 GMT -5
I have just spent more than one and a half hours trying to work on this problem. I had a reply made up with all I had done and found (or not found). And when I hit the 'send' button the response was "The Website is Too Busy to Display the Page" - and I LOST EVERYTHING!!! Bottom line is that in 1861 George and Elizabeth now both state they were born in Ludgvan. I can find no Elizabeth MILLETT and no Elizabeth VINGOE born in Ludgvan. I can find no previous marriage for Elizabeth. I can find no record at all of a Stephen MILLETT. In 1861 George and Elizabeth had four boaders staying with them:- Elizabeth MILLETT, 34, unmarried Henry do., 7 Ann do., 5 Peter do., 3 All stated birthplace as Ludgvan but the only possible I can find is an Elizabeth baptised in 1823. Bottom line is that, at the moment, I CAN FIND NOTHING!!! That's the summary. CT
|
|
|
Post by Mal on Mar 28, 2009 6:09:12 GMT -5
Oh dear. It looks like a right can of worms this one!!! Sorry if I am causing you a headache, especially seeing as I stumbled across this one by accident. Do you think we are dealing with an OPC error here? You pointed out one I had a while back I recall... those very "slippery" ones!!!! If the census information is correct are you getting the feeling that something funny is going on here? We have George Berryman and Elizabeth ?? and a young servant Elizabeth Millet on the 1841. She does not appear on the 1851 and then she reappears on the 1861 as a boarder with I pesume the children stated above....
|
|
|
Post by newlyn on Mar 28, 2009 6:28:24 GMT -5
There were two Elizabeth Milletts born in Ludgvan that I have found. 1. b.23.111797 parents are Thomas and Catherine
2. b.23.2.1823 parents are John and Elizabeth
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 28, 2009 7:20:00 GMT -5
Newlyn - that 1823 baptism is the one I was referring to but again there is no really clear indication that the 10-year-old Elizabeth of 1841 and the 34-year-old in 1861 are the same person. Malcolm - 'cans of worms' seem to be in abundance around here. It would be nice to be able to sort this one out but I don't know that it is an OPC error. I don't know if the author of the Gulval PR Transcript and the OPC are one and the same but at the moment I wuuld say that I have two separate sources for the same event. There is definitely something 'funny' going on but I just cannot work it out at the moment. CT
|
|
|
Post by Mal on Mar 28, 2009 8:25:00 GMT -5
I have contacted my Vingoe cousins to see if they have anything on GRACE VINGOE BERRYMAN and her mother, possibly Elizabeth Vingoe. Their research is far more extensive on the Vingoe side of things, with access to old letters, Bibles and wills etc that are not online. I hope they might be able to come up with something.... one way or the other!!! I think CT is going to hit me over the head with one of my cans of worms soon!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 28, 2009 9:04:18 GMT -5
Don't worry Malcolm you can dispense with the protective headwear! You are just adding to the collection of 'cans of worms' I already have. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mal on Mar 30, 2009 10:23:44 GMT -5
Right, I have some information. According to my Vingoe relativesthe full name of the Elizabeth who married George Berryman was Elizabeth Vingoe Nicholls, a full explanation is due anon. So we have an ELIZABETH VINGOE NICHOLLS: we might presume at this stage that we are looking for the daughter of Mr Nicholls and Mrs Vingoe. Lo and behold ELIZABETH NICHOLLS baptised 09 JUN 1805 Gulval, Cornwall, England Parents: Stephen and Grace2. STEPHEN NICHOLLS - International Genealogical Index Gender: Male Marriage: 31 JAN 1800 Gulval, Cornwall, England married to GRACE VINGO(E)I wonder if the atrocious handwriting of the time did not cause someone to confuse Millet and Nichollas, not too far fetched. There is no mention of Ludgvan, but then the census asks where born and not baptised, the distance is not too great for it not to be plausible. Have we solved one here? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 30, 2009 11:56:27 GMT -5
Given what I have been through trying to find MILLETT I can see this as a most plausible and logical answer. And I can certainly see how, with atrocious handwriting, NICHOLL(s) could be read as MILLETT. A look at the original entry would be the ultimate proof but I am quite happy to accept that we have an answer. CT (And it means I can spare a couple of brain cells for the other problems I keep finding with my American Trewhellas! )
|
|