Hope you have the Gloves on! ;D
You may be a terrier, but I am a pit bull - ha ha! ;D
Uh huh... Look at how many intervals we have here:
1. Nancy transcribed it.
2. Nancy brought home her transcription (presumably written by hand) and then typed it.
3. Nancy calls you on the phone and reads it to you
4. You write it down
5. You copy it to this board.
So we are now five intervals removed from the original at the CRO, and I still do not know if the one at the CRO is even an original, or someone else's transcription....
And any genealogist worth their salt knows that the more times something is transcribed, the more likely a mistake will creep in.
Absolutely! I just discovered quite recently that when I first transcribed William Nenis' will, I missed the part about his two brother-in-laws...
But I have also seen over and over online the 'snowball rolling downhill' effect of one wrong transcription leading to wrong conclusions and then being perpetuated as fact over and over again... I am wanting to avoid that here, as the Trewella leases are extrememly important.
Now, I did not notice the date before (I have not had a lot of time to look them over) and I am very happy you pointed it out.
I think it is very significant for a few reasons...
Some event occured that caused James to renew these leases at this time. Based on a study of some of the other Trewhella deeds (and also a lot of the Connerton Deeds I copied on Gwithian families), the usual reason for renewing was the death of the former leaseholder (later deeds often stated who the former owner was, but the earlier ones seem to be less detailed).
I think it is very very likely that the elder James (the Churchwarden) had recently died.
Secondly, the second deed gives as its lives 2 of the young sons of Thomas Trewhella (younger brother of the leasee). Therefore, it only makes sense that the first deed is giving as two of its lives the sons of the leasee.
I would guess that James the Churchwarden held both the land at Nancledra and the land at Chylasson and intended both to go to his son James, but wanted one to eventually pass to the heirs of his son Thomas.
We also know from the will of James III (of Scilly) that the land continued to be shared by the representatives of both James and Thomas.