Lannanta - I cannot seem to find the correct thread either.
However - if you remember back to the early days with the family of Robert Quick and Catherine Trewhella you may recall that there was an issue with the children in the 1841 Census.
The children of Robert and Catherine:-
Catherine Trewhella - 1822
Wilmot Thomas - 1824
John - 1826
James - 1828
William - 1830
Paul 1832
Matthew Trewhella - 1834
Richard - 1836
Elizabeth Jane - 1839
In the 1841 Census we have:-
Elizabeth Quick - 71
Robert Quick - 45
Wilmot Quick - 14
William Quick - 13
James Quick - 11
John Quick - 9
Paul Quick - 7
Matthew Quick - 5
Richard Quick - 3
Elizabeth Quick - 1
Also in 1841 we have:-
Catherine Trewhella - 65
Martin Trewhella - 40
John Trewhella - 35
Jane Trewhella - 25
Catherine Quick - 15
James Quick - 13
William Quick - 10
It was at this point that we agreed that at least James and William were enumerated twice in the Census.
The main problem with this was that in the household of Robert Quick William, James and John were recorded in the wrong order and also with the wrong ages.
That was put down to perhaps the person given the details.
But if we look at the family with Catherine Trewhella (their grandmother) John is missing but James and William are listed in the correct order AND with ages matching the baptisms.
Since that time you have obtained the death certificate for John s/o Robert Quick age 13 in 1839. (I think those details are correct!)
So if John is dead then the John enumerated with Robert in 1841 cannot have been his son!
With James and William enumerated with Catherine Trewhella it now suggests the possibility/probability that the William and James enumerated with Robert Quick may also not have been his sons.
Another oddity is the fact that all children in the household or Robert were listed in order of age - thus suggesting they were siblings!
My argument now is that these were not all siblings and that dual-enumeration did not actually occur in this case.
The question is - if William, James and John were not sons of Robert then who were they?
And I believe the answer is in the following family:-
Paul Quick married Hannah richards 24th July 1826 at St Ives
Hannah Richards Quick born 1827 and died 1827
William Quick born 1828
JamesQuick born 1830
John Quick born 1832
We know that Hannah died in 1837 and as far as I know we have not yet found Paul in the 1841 Census.
I believe it was the three sons of Paul and Hannah who were in the household of Robert Quick in 1841.
BUT - in reality this was NOT the household of Robert Quick but rather that of his mother Elizabeth!
And that might explain the way the children were recorded.
Why should the sons of Paul Quick be enumerated with Elizabeth and her son Robert??
The closest link I have found is with the CURNOW side.
Paul Quick's great-grandmother was Mary Curnow.
Robert Quick's Great-grandmother was Wilmot Curnow.
Mary and Wilmot Curnow were sisters.
There is probably a more recent link than this but there is a direct family connection back at Towednack.
In fact there is almost sure to be a more recent link given that Paul Quick (husband of Wilmot Curnow) and James Quick (husband of Mary Curnow) were both sons of Paul and Jane Quick.
Hope you can understand this - but I am sure of the identities of the children in question.
CT