|
Post by Zenobia on Apr 25, 2007 23:43:30 GMT -5
Eureka!
I finally found something...
It still does not solve the Joseph Trewhella dilemma, but it is something....
Mathew Trewhella arrived 30 Apr 1844 in NY on the ship George Washington. With him were the Henry and Elizabeth Lanyon family.
The rest of the family arrived 26 June 1845 in NY on the ship Waterloo as follows:
Julia Trewhella and inf. age 42 Julia, age 17 Mathew, age 13 Jane, age 8 William, age 5 Mary, age 3
So there was one unidentified child, probably born shortly before leaving England (note it was 14 months between Mathew's arrival and Julia's).
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Apr 26, 2007 0:17:03 GMT -5
Partial success! I found them in 1870. The surname is listed as "Drewlee" - sigh... Julia is squeezed inbetween her son's kids, so her birthplace erroneously says "Conn" or I would have found it sooner... 1870, Cheshire, New Haven Co., CT, p. 24: William Drewlee, age 30, butcher, b. ENG Jane Drewlee, age 28, b. ENG James Drewlee, age 6, b. CT Mar Drewlee, age 5, b. CT Charles Drewlee, age 3, b. CT Julia Drewlee, age 66, b. CT (sic) Austin Drewlee, age 8/12, b. Oct., CT (this census taker must ahve been hittin' the booze, as it also says little Austin owns $1000 o real estate) And next door: Mathew Drewlee, age 40, butcher, 3000/500, b. ENG Maggie Drewlee, age 40, b. ENG Sarah Drewlee, age 13, b. CT Maggie Drewlee, age 11, b. CT Theodore Drewlee, age 2, b. CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Apr 26, 2007 23:13:29 GMT -5
Great work! But - I am not sure who Henry and Elizabeth Lanyon were. I have Juliana (Julia) bp. Ludgvan in 1805 followed by Mary (1806), Margaret (1807), Joseph Martin (1811), William (1812) and Jane (1815). Parents were William LANYON, yeoman and Mary MARTIN who married at Ludgvan October 27th 1803. Julia and the remainder of Matthew Trewhella's family:- The Infant would have been Ann who was born about 1844 and has been discussed in the previous 'Joseph' thread as having probably married Matthew Curnow in 1863. All the ages appear correct except for Mathew (age 13) which is a minor concern. Matthew was born and baptised at Ludgvan in 1829 so his age should have been shown as 15 or, possibly, 16. (Could it be that 13 was actually 15 but the '5' looked like '3'??) RE Ann:- I believe previous information covers this - but I reckon this was the Ann recorded at St Catherine's House in the 1st Qtr of 1844. That would just about perfectly match with the emigration data you have supplied. Now for the 1870 Census (No wonder I could not find them - I didn't use enough 'variations' in my search!) You have certainly found the right families though I have to make a couple of corrections. James Drewlee, age 6 - this will be JANE (b. 1864) who later married George VIVIAN. Mar Drewlee, age 5 - has to be MATTHEW who married Elsie Netta THOMPSON in 1889 and was deceased before the 1900 Census. Austin Drewlee, age 8/12 will be WILLIAM AUSTIN who was born at Cheshire, New Haven, CT November 2nd, 1869. He married Nellied Bassett SMITH about 1894 and died at Providence, RI January 1st 1955. The next door neighbours are (now) obviously William's brother and his family. Maggie would be Matthew's first wife - Margaret Dianthe HOTCHKISS who died in 1872. So things are really starting to come together with this family and it may be that some early records we are seeking may be recorded under similar diverse 'variations' of the Trewhella surname. Well done - and I hope to have more later tonight after I have had several hours sleep.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Apr 27, 2007 13:51:20 GMT -5
Well, I did search the 1850 and 1860 censuses till I was blue in the face, but all I can find is Jane Trewhella in CT in 1860. She is living with those Lanyons.
The way I was able to find the family in 1870 was to search on "Jul***" with no surname filled in and a birth year of 1803 +/- 5 years. Of couse, when I added the birth place as "England" she didn't even show up, since her birth was erroneously recorded as CT.
Anyway, using that same method (and also trying the same with "Mat***") I searched 1850 and 1860, but nothing comes up. Anywhere.
Finding Jane alone in 1860 makes me wonder if the family was in Canada prior to returning to CT... Especially if Ann Curnow is their daughter, and spent time in Newfoundland...
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Apr 27, 2007 23:07:56 GMT -5
Would appreciate all the details you can give me regarding Henry and Elizabeth Lanyon and their family. Have just done a search of the 1841 Census and can find 'no' Henry Lanyon who could be this man. And can also find no 'married' Elizabeth Lanyon living without her husband. I did find a widowed Mary Lanyon with 30 year old son William living at Crowlas in Ludgvan. Along side her was the family of Martin and Sarah Trewhella. Next was the family of Matthew and Julia Trewhella. Martin and Matthew Trewhella were brothers. Mary Lanyon's age was given as '60' so that is give or take a couple of years in 1841. Son William was baptised in December 1812 so his age of '30' pretty matches here. It does tell us that William Lanyon was dead prior to the 1841 Census so I need to find his burial if I can. Will try and work more on this after work tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Apr 28, 2007 18:48:58 GMT -5
Here ya go:
On the Shiip's List:
Henry Lanyon, age 29, laborer Elizabeth Lanyon, age 25 Mary Jane Lanyon, age 3 Emily Lanyon, age 10 m. Mary Lanyon, age 28 Mary Lanyon, age 5 Louisa Lanyon, age 3 Jane Lanyon, age 1 & 6 mo.
1850 Census, Cheshire, New Haven Co., CT, p. 190:
Henry Lanyon, age 36, miner, b. ENG Elizabeth ?T? Lanyon, age 31, b. ENG Mary J. Lanyon, age 9, b. ENG Emily M. Lanyon, age 7, b. ENG James M. Lanyon, age 5, b. CT Wm. H., age 3, b. CT Joseph N., age 1, b. CT Matthew Norris, age 46, miner, b. Ireland
1860 Census, Cheshire, New Haven Co., CT, p. 15:
Henry Lanyon, age 46, farmer & miner, 2000/0, b. ENG Elizabeth Lanyon, age 40, b. ENG Emily M. Lanyon, age 17, b. ENG James M. Lanyon, age 15, b. CT Wm. H., age 13, b. CT Arabella Lanyon, age 8, b. CT Julia Lanyon, age 5, b. CT Elizabeth Lanyon, age 4, b. CT Susan Lanyon, age 8/12, b. CT
And in 1860 Jane Trewhella was living with James (age 41, b. ENG) and Lucretia (age 45, b. CT) Lanyon and their son Wesley A. (12).
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Apr 28, 2007 19:08:58 GMT -5
More:
St. Philip & Jacob Parish, Bristol, Gloucester
Henry Lanyon, age 25, miner, not born in county Elizabeth Lanyon, age 20, not born in county Jane Lanyon, age 12 days, born in county
Interestingly enough, there is a Wills family living next door also b. out of county, with a daughter named Arabella...
There is a Mary Jane Lanyon, registered at the Clifton District, Gloucester, Jul-Sep 1841, and an Emily Lanyon, registered at the Chipping-Sodbury District, Gloucester in Apr-Jun 1843.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Apr 28, 2007 19:18:06 GMT -5
James Drewlee, age 6 - this will be JANE (b. 1864) who later married George VIVIAN. Mar Drewlee, age 5 - has to be MATTHEW who married Elsie Netta THOMPSON in 1889 and was deceased before the 1900 Census. Austin Drewlee, age 8/12 will be WILLIAM AUSTIN who was born at Cheshire, New Haven, CT November 2nd, 1869. He married Nellied Bassett SMITH about 1894 and died at Providence, RI January 1st 1955. I rechecked the census, and you are right about "Mat" and it also says M for male. The other entry, however, clearly says James and says "M" for male. It is probably the census taker's mistake when he made the copies as was required.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Apr 29, 2007 11:46:44 GMT -5
Good work there - but a conundrum also regarding James/Jane! Okay - I probably have a few hours left tonight before I really HAVE to get to bed. Scenario:- 1. Check on some of this info. 2. Check on info provided by Calswimmer and Cornishmaid regarding 'Clarinda Trewhella Noall' 3. Keep working through previously downloaded US Vital Records info which might contain some further clues. 4. Eat?
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Apr 29, 2007 12:04:27 GMT -5
Zenobia - regarding your recheck of the Census:- I think you 'must' be correct in what you say about the Census Records. If you compare that finding with what you recently posted about the arrival of Julia Trewhella and her children in 1845 you will see that 'James' surely must be 'Jane'. - but there is something here that leaves a lingering doubt. I KNOW that Jane was born at Ludgvan March 13 1837 and baptised there April 9 1837 because it is in the Ludgvan Parish Register. (daughter of .....) "Thinking to myself" - Hmmm. - I cannot guarantee that I (myself) actually saw that record - ) However - the initial data came from a cousin from Ludgvan (not NRT) who had looked up lots of stuff at the CRO and she gave the date as March 13 1837 and stated it was 'Jane d/o' ... (It appears that information related to the Birth Date). In IGI we find the same record for Jane d/o ... bp. Apr 9 1837. So, we have two sources who suggest this is definately Jane rather than James and, in that family, there is 1. no 'space' to fit another child around that time and 2. no obvious reason to have a son named James at that time.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Apr 29, 2007 12:55:31 GMT -5
Another interesting snippet for this family (with more to come if this connection does not time out first) Ancestry.com - Cheshire, Connecticut: Town History, 1694-1840 James STEVENS, of Cornwall, Eng., and JULIA TREWELLA, of same, m. December 20, 1849. (1849 is a bit outside the boundary of the title but there are later records in this document. - I was viewing 9,178-9,277 of 11,721 total records.) This JULIA TREWELLA is almost certainly the eldest daughter of Matthew TREWHELLA and Juliana LANYON but I do not know who the James STEVENS was - YET!) Working on more but, so as I do not lose this one I will post now and send more later. (as I find it).
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on May 1, 2007 13:47:17 GMT -5
This Lanyon Family is starting to give me the sh..Horrors. (Not sure if I am allowed to say 'shrieking'? ) With Jane Trewhella enumerated at the residence of James Lanyon in 1860 and her father having arrived in the US in 1844 with Henry Lanyon and his family I would be seriously thinking about the fact that James and Henry were siblings and that both were brothers of Matthew Trewhella's wife Juliana. I can, so far, find nothing about Henry or James in England (except for the possibility of Henry and Elizabeth in GLS in 1841 with 12-day-old daughter Jane). Logic suggests realtionships here but ... (AND, as has been asked before - JUST WHERE were all the Trewhella members of this scenario in 1850 and 1860???) There is an old saying - "Everybody got to be somewhere!"
|
|
|
Post by calswimmer on May 1, 2007 16:16:18 GMT -5
Jane Trewhella, age 13, is with James Lanyon in Connecticut in 1850. Also in the residence is Eveline Brooks, 57. There is a young adaline brooks with the same family in 1860.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on May 2, 2007 10:20:53 GMT -5
How the heck did you find that one? The name, the age, the place all fit .... but the question remains - just how did you find it?? And we are still looking for the rest of that family in 1850 and 1860! I can understand Jane's elder two living siblings not being 'found' (up to a point). Julia, I believe, married a James Stevens in 1849. Matthew has been the subject of a bit of discussion and appears to have married in 1856 out in California - so he could have been 'anywhere' in 1851. Then we come to Jane (you just found in 1850 and the rest of us could only find in 1860). But after Jane there was William, Mary, Ann and (possibly) Joseph. This is all without mentioning the parents - Matthew and Julia! Could you please supply details of where and how you found Jane in 1850 and it might give us another clue.
|
|
|
Post by calswimmer on May 2, 2007 10:36:41 GMT -5
No problem! Since she was with that family in 1860, I just did a search for James Lanyon in Connecticut in 1850. There she was again. From searching the internet I see that James Lanyon was hired from Cornwall to manage mine operations in Cheshire, CT. He brought a number of miners over with him. I'm off to work! Till later, Calswimmer
|
|