Furze

[Deleted]

Peter Furse/Furze was born in 1688, he married Amy (Clement) Clemense, 17 November 1711.
They had the following children: Peter - 1713; Ann 1715; and John 1717.
"Bapised in ye year of our Lord god 1718 Wm. ye son of petter furce & Ammey his wife was Baptd. febry ye 7th", gives us William.
Now I have William b. abt 1735, m. 20 July 1760 to Anne Jennings ... who are known ancestors.
That could mean William of 1718 is Wm of 1735's father ... but I can't find any information on William b. 1718, other than a birthdate .... could use a suggestion on where to look.

[Cornish Terrier]

I do not think there is a generation missing and the figures you show would mean that if there were then the elder man would have been less than 17 when he married.

I have a scenario in my database that I think is probably correct however it is very much circumstantial given that marriages for St Buryan from 1743 to 1754 are missing.

There are two records of interest at St Buryan that seem to have no connection anywhere unless they apply to my scenario:-

17th May 1753 St Buryan - Peter son of Wm. Furze and Eliz. his wife was baptised
15th June 1756 St Buryan - Elizabeth Furze buried

(This Peter Furze I suspect is the man who married Martha Thomas at Madron in 1784.)

Now, note that William and Ann Furze had six children and of those there were four sons yet not one was named Peter.
The only two daughters were named Amy and Ann which makes sense given William was the son of Peter and Amy Furze and his wife's name was Ann.

So if William named his first daughter after his mother Amy then why not name one of his four sons Peter? UNLESS ............. he had been previously married and already had a son of that name!

The picture as I see it is:-

William Furze bp. 1718 son of Peter and Amy was married sometime around 1752 to Elizabeth. One son, Peter, was born in 1753 and then Elizabeth died and was buried at St Buryan in 1756.
In 1759 the now widowed William Furze married Ann Jennings at Ludgvan where five children were born. The family then returned to St Buryan where the last child, Anne, was baptised in 1770.

CT

[Deleted]

That is the information I have ... same players, same dates. I just can't see Peter Furze and Amy Clemense (Clement) being the parents of William b. 1735, who I show as the spouse of Anne Jennings. Am I placing a phantom Wm in this scenario?
So my Wm Furze 1735-1770 isn't the Wm son of Peter & Amy? But Wm b. 1718 is? That works 52 years old at death ...
where did I get Wm 1735 ?
For that matter where did John 1766 - 1820 who married Constance Williams fit in
Now I am confused

[sue]

Wm Furze "b about 1735" sounds to me like one of those notorious, "don't know when he was baptized, let's say he was a nice round 25, or 30, at time of known marriage.........."

Not a thought originating with you, obviously.

(Sorry to butt in! Been following this....)

Sue

[tonymitch]

Hi Folks.
I have no dates for William other than his marriage to Ann......However, with regard to John 1766 he seems to have been the youngest son of William and Ann.

There is another son John in this family born 1761. I assume that John 1761 died before the birth of John 1766 and there is a record of a John Furze being buried in Ludgvan in 1764. I have assumed this to be John 1761 but there is no further information as to the age of the John being buried in Ludgvan.

[Cornish Terrier]

I just can't see Peter Furze and Amy Clemense (Clement) being the parents of William b. 1735,

I agree with Sue's comment on this but I will be a little more specific about the probable origins ..... Age 25 is darned typical of the rubbish inserted into IGI records (mostly the LDS Member Submitted entries) which suggest that every male ever married was age 25 when that event occurred and every female that ever married was age 21!!!

If you read my information a little more carefully you will note that I am suggesting William was the son of Peter and Amy baptised in 1718 and that my interpretation of the available information is that said William married twice!!!

Forget about the garbage about William having been born in 1735 because that most certainly appears to be a date 'made up' by someone to suit their own agenda!

Clear your head of the rubbish and have a good think about the scenario I am proposing which is actually based on available factual and verifiable information!

CT

[Deleted]

Welcome Sue ... any feedback is much appreciated. I try to have at least 3 sources before I feel it is somewhat factual.

CT, I agree ... having gone through the LDS microfich info when I was in College in Salt Lake ... I found data which was wrong ... found out on my trip to St. Just in Penwith 25 years later.

Well Tony ... looks like your American cousin has his dates messed up ... again ... just don't let anyone know

[tonymitch]

From my extensive notes......

There is no record of William's marriage to Elizabeth, but St Buryan Baptisms has a Peter Furze s/o William and Elizabeth. St Buryan burials have an Elizabeth Furse being buried 15 June 1756. It is therefore assumed that Elizabeth married William and they had a child Peter with Elizabeth dying in 1756 and William remarrying Ann Jennings.

I am assuming William's dob of 1718 comes from the OPC record for Ludgvan (Petter Furce being the father). If however we try to locate Ann Jennings to ascertain approx age of William we come across a problem which cannot be cured with medication.

Ann Jennings, Father, Francis Jennings (looks good...Ann names one of her children Francis) baptised Ludgvan (looks even better) 1759 and again 1762. So we assume Ann 1759 has died. This means William marries the 1762 Ann Jennings three years before she is born.

Lordie....I hate this hobby.

[Deleted]

Ok, I am not the only one that is loosing it. I added the dates and figure Wm of 1718 married Anne Jennings when she was 3 years old ... Not sure but in most countries, even then, I think that was frowned on.

As far as Ann is concerned: how about parents John b. 1708 and Elizabeth Williams b. 1707? Then again Francis makes sense.

I still love the hobby, but I think I am breaking out in stress hives

[Deleted]

William Furse/Furze's first wife was possibly: Elizabeth Dristul. She married Wm 4 January 1740. Daughter Elizabeth was born, 12 November 1743 and his wife Elizabeth died 15 November 1943 .. all this occured in Fowery, Cornwall.

I just cant' put my mind around William's birth of 1718 .... he would be 22 when he married Elizabeth, and 35 when he married Anne Jennings in 1753 ... of course she was 9 at the time ( Ann Jennings
b. 1 Nov 1744)

[Cornish Terrier]

I just cant' put my mind around William's birth of 1718 .... he would be 22 when he married Elizabeth, and 35 when he married Anne Jennings in 1753 ... of course she was 9 at the time ( Ann Jennings
b. 1 Nov 1744)

I am sorry but I do have to be a little blunt here.

Firstly the marriage of William Furze about 1752/1753 would have been to Elizabeth! He did not marry Ann Jennings until December 1759 when she would have been 15 or perhaps even 16!
AND you are making the rather large assumption that this must be the Ann Jennings who was involved!

You are obviously under the impression that the record of birth/baptism for every Ann Jennings every born or baptised in Cornwall during the 18th Century:-

1. was recorded in the first place
2. has survived mildew or other damage
3. has bypassed the fate of many records that were lost or otherwise destroyed
4. is readily available either in the form of images (FamilySearch) or transcription (e.g. OPC, FamilySearch, IGI)

I have already mentioned the missing marriages for St Buryan and I should think you are aware that registers for Sennen and St Levan do not survive prior to about 1700. Registers in other Parishes have gaps and many registers, even into the 19th Century, have suffered from damp and mildew, fading ink or other damage.

Obviously a girl is not going to be married at age 3 or age 9! And it is equally obvious, as per the above, that it is possible records have been lost or were possibly never recorded.
Even at St Ives and Towednack around the 1790s there are records that seem to be missing and that really is a pain in the neck for me personally!

You need to open your mind to all possibilities and don't just blindly accept everything at face value!
Put some thought into the information you do have and then sit back and think about all the information that you may not have.
Think about and consider options that might be available to help you find the information you want.

I don't wish to offend and I will continue to help in any way that I can but I do need you to open your eyes and realise that this is not an easy game.

Set yourself some paramaters to work with and then work from there. A good starting point is to work from known information and set up a potential start and end date for Ann Jennings.
As I have said many times before I work on age 48 as the maximum age for woman to be having children and generally I go for around age 16 as the youngest to be having the first child. Age 14 or 15 is possible but I generally find 16 and above is more the norm.

So the information we have currently for Ann Jennings is that she married in 1759, had her first child in 1760 and her last known child in 1770.
The unknown variable with the later children is whether or not they were baptised soon after birth or whether baptism was delayed. If the delay was only a few months then there is no great problem.

So with the last child appearing in 1770 you need to substract 48 which gives you a likely earliest birthdate for Ann of 1722.
First child was 1760 so substract 16 for a likely latest birthdate of 1744.

I would be inclined to begin looking between 1722 and about 1742.
And don't forget to see what Jennings Wills might be available. There are a number of collections of Wills that have been transcribed or abstracted and you might strike lucky and find some mention of Ann amongst them.

I will do a little more work and see if I might be able to dig up something that might be of some help to you.

CT

[Deleted]

I should realize the computers of the 18th century were not realiable and their floppy disc's didn't hold up to the environment. I hadn't thought of using a spectrum from 16 to 48 ... interesting, I will try that approach.

[Cornish Terrier]

I think you should find it much easier and much less confusing because that formula reduces the time-frame you need to concentrate on.

Understand that a record of baptism may no longer survive in which case you may need to look at potential families to which Ann might belong.
A Francis Jennings was a witness to the marriage of Ann to William Furze but that does not necessarily infer a father or brother - Francis might have been an uncle or a cousin.

And also consider the possibility that Ann might not have been born in Cornwall! Contrary to what many people seem to believe it was far from unusual to find Cornish families outside of Cornwall much earlier. Cornish are renowned as miners and you will find many mining areas in Devon where we know that at least one Quick family from St Ives spent some time during the mid-18th Century.

CT

[Deleted]

After changing some dates around, reevaluating my OPC & other information, things look a bit more plausable. William who married Ann, was a bit older ... then again I have seen that before.

I do consider the possibility that they may have been born elsewhere. I fervently believe it was around 1500 to 1700 that the Furze/Furse clan moved from Devon into the 'Land of Milk & Honey'

Some family notes have mention of Copper Mines in Devon ... I have set these aside for further review.