Dennis family in St Just and beyond

[mjsd]

Hi all,

I am brand new here. I have looked around the forum and have seen some posts re the Dennis family throughout Cornwall, however I found no specific place I thought this would belong. Hence the new thread!

I have hit a brickwall in my research and hope you might have some ideas for me.

My branch of the Dennis family includes Peter Dennis (1775-Jun 4 1838) he married (Nov 4 1804, St Just) Hannah Trembath (1780-Oct 15 1847). Their son was Richard Dennis (Nov 3 1805, St Just-1887, Williamstown, Victoria, Australia) he married (1847, St Just) Mary Williams (1811, St Just- 25 Oct 1850, St Just).

Richard Dennis and his son John Williams Dennis arrived in Melbourne aboard the Mermaid in 1854.

Hope this is sufficient and clear enough to strike a chord.

Thanks,

Malcolm

[Cornish Terrier]

Hi Malcolm- from what I can see at the moment there is one Peter Dennis born around the right time.

Peter son of George and Jane Dennis baptised 9th January 1774 at St Buryan

Peter and Hannah appear to have had only three children - Richard, Peter and John - so trying to work with naming patterns is a little difficult.

The fact that he had sons Richard and John but no George is a little awkward also.

But unless you have managed to eliminate this Peter then I would be looking at the possibility that he is the one.

CT

[white]

Hi Malcolm, E mail on its way with 2 attachments.
I believe your Peter is the one born 1777 at Sancreed and bapt.12th.dec.1780 at Sancreed, base son of Alice Dennis.
Now, have not pinned Alice down as yet. I have also sent the greater file for the Dennis line and there are a few possible Alices in there.
Roy

[mjsd]

Wow that was quick!

thank you both for your replies... Cornish Terrier, you are right in saying that Peter and Hannah had 3 sons (Richard, Peter and John), but I think that White is on the money with Alice. That is the way I have been leaning but it was more a hunch than anything else, the discrepancies in dates always makes me doubtful

I eagerly await the attachments and wonder why it took me sooo long to find this forum.

Thanks again,

Malcolm

[Cornish Terrier]

We do try to keep on the ball! ;D

In this case I am the lesser expert as I don't know much at all about the Dennis family.

Hopefully my learned friend has the answer for you.

CT

[mjsd]

Hi folks, I have been down the trail and am beginning to doubt whether in fact Alice was the mother of my Peter, and am now hoping to prove that his parents were George and Jane as Cornish Terrier suggested ;D

I have the marriage of Peter and Hannah as already stated as Nov 4 1804, St Just, and have been trying to find a marriage certificate that will hopefully list Peter's parents. As yet I haven't been able to find it despite the Cornwall OPC listing St Just marriages from 1599-1812. I do have the "Dennis line" document (thank you white!) that has Peter, son of George Dennis and Jane Lethan, born St Buryan, Jan 9 1774, and I am hoping this is the right one, but would love to 'prove' it.

Do you have any suggestions as to where to look for a marriage certificate that might solve this quandary??

ps I have ordered this Peter's will and still awaiting it's arrival.

Hope all is well,

Malcolm

[Cornish Terrier]

Malcolm - unfortunately it is highly unlikely you will find what you are looking for.

It was not until Civil Registration that provision was made for the entry of the name the father of each party in the marriage records so prior to that it was generally rare to find that information.

In the case of a 'minor' you might sometimes see a reference 'with Consent of xxxxxx, the sole surviving parent' and I have seen that recently but generally it will simply be 'with consent of parents' or similar.

Probably the best you can hope for is that at least one of the witnesses was a family member.

It may be worth your while to get in touch with Bob Bolitho who is the Online Parish Clerk for St Just.
If he has access to the Film of the Parish Register I am sure he will look up the entry for you and provide you with all details recorded.

You can contact Bob via the Cornwall Online Parish Clerk site by going to the Parish Index and scrolling down to Just, St.

CT

[mjsd]

Thanks CT,

I wrote to Bob and he was most obliging. He, like yourself and white identified Alice, and George and Jane, as potential parents. The transcript of the banns did include witnesses but not Peter's parents. However, Bob was willing to hypothesise on various pieces of evidence and was inclined toward George and Jane as the appropriate parents.

Thanks,

Malcolm

[Cornish Terrier]

There is one other piece of information that inclines me towards George and Jane as the parents.

When Peter Dennis was buried at Morvah 4th June 1838 his age was recorded as 63.

This equates (if accurate) to a birth around 1774 or 1775.

My one dilemma with this family is Hannah.

According to the transcripts she was age 59 when she was buried at Morvah in 1847 so we are looking at a birth around 1787 or 1788.

That would have made her no more than 17 when married which begs the question - why only three children?

The nearest baptism in IGI is 1791 for Nancy Trembath with the only Hannah within 10 years being baptised at St Just in 1780.

CT

[mjsd]

Good morning CT,

like you I am inclined to believe Peter's parents were George and Jane, barring definitive evidence to the contrary, they seem to be a very good fit. As for Hannah, I too have seen the records listing her age at death as 59, but I believe this to be a transcription error (should read 69!) given that:
-The IGI (P020311) lists a Hannah Trembath's christening 30 July 1780 in St Just to parents Richard and Rebecca.
-There is a Richard Trembath nominated as a witness in the marriage by banns record of Hannah to Peter Dennis.
-The 1841 census has a Hannah Dennis (widow, crossed out) 60 years, living with 2 sons; Richard 30 and John 20. Even with what appears to be some age rounding, this makes her birth date 1781.

The children issue is interesting. I have 3 sons listed, Richard 1805, Peter 1808, and John 1818. Bob Bolitho also mentions a daughter, Hannah, but I cannot find her anywhere! Interestingly, the gap between children is significant, but John's birth date does suggest Hannah's age at the time to be approx 40.

So I think I have enough data to satisfy myself as to both Peter and Hannah's parents. I do understand that there is a leap of faith concerned with the 59/69 years at death, but I believe there is enough data to support such a leap.

Thank you for voicing your thoughts CT, as I am finding the further back I go the murkier the waters sometimes seem to get. I sincerely appreciate all input and even more so questions and doubts. Hopefully it all adds up to a better picture for me and all concerned ;D!!

Thanks again CT, I would love to know what you think of my 'leap of faith'.

Malcolm

[Cornish Terrier]

Malcolm - I tend to agree with you about Hannah.

I re-checked my information regarding her burial and confirmed that I was looking at the more recent transcript.

Problem is that the two separate transcripts I have were done by two different people who both show the same details - i.e. age 59.

I need to be a little careful as I have not personally seen the original entry - however I have enough experience now of reading old Parish Registers to be able to make a comment.

In my experience it can be very easy to mistake a 6 and a 5 in some of these records and it can be for any number of reasons - fading ink, marks on the page or just the way the particular Clerk wrote things can all be factors.

I have had more than a few that I looked at for ages before deciding which would be correct.

My personal opinion is that the age will, in fact, be 69 or possibly even 67 but I would really need to get a look at the original entry to be sure of that.

Looking at the 1841 Census now and it certainly records Hannah as 60 which is a further indication of an error somewhere.

As for daughter Hannah - well I have not found her yet either but that does not mean she is not there somewhere.
It may be only a burial that has been found but Bob would have a good reason for having mentioned her I should think.

Will see what more can be found.

CT

[mjsd]

Thanks CT,

I look forward to whatever you can turn up. I agree with you in regard to Bob, his opinions seem well informed and considered. I can't imagine Hannah is a figment of his imagination

Now, is it too early for another quandary??

I received a Dennis family tree from white, that details a huge line of Dennis family members, an amazing document! I have found a couple of entries that I have not been able to ratify or make sense of. Below is a (lightly edited) extract...

PETER5 DENNIS (GEORGE4, JENKEN3, JOHN2, UNKNOWN1)6 was born 1680 in St.Buryan, and died May 27, 1766 in St.Buryan. He married (1) ELIZABETH Abt. 1717. He married (2) PENELOPE HEAD December 26, 1718 in Sennen.

Children of PETER DENNIS and ELIZABETH are:
i. RICHARD6 DENNIS, d. April 17, 1742, St.Buryan; m. ELIZABETH.
28. ii. PETER DENNIS, b. Abt. 1718, Sennen; d. July 1790, Sennen.
iii. JOHN DENNIS, b. May 20, 1723, Sennen; d. September 10, 1747, Sennen.

29. iv. RACHEL DENNIS, b. February 20, 1724/25, Sennen; d. 1804.
30. v. SAMPSON DENNIS, b. February 15, 1726/27, Sennen.
vi. MARGARET DENNIS, b. November 30, 1730, Sennen.
31. vii. GEORGE DENNIS, b. July 20, 1734, Sennen; d. Sennen.

Child of PETER DENNIS and PENELOPE HEAD is:
32. viii. ELIZABETH6 DENNIS, b. May 6, 1721, St.Buryan; d. October 1814, Sennen.

This can't be right can it?? I can confirm the marriage to Penelope Head (IGI M022571) in 1718 but not the marriage of Elizabeth. Of more concern however is that children are attributed to Elizabeth while Peter was married to Penelope. The simplest solution is that these are two different Peters, but I just don't know.

Any ideas... anyone??

sincerely
Malcolm

[Cornish Terrier]

Quandaries always welcome!

And then I read your note. ;D

I just had another look around and there are more men named Peter Dennis than you can poke a stick at!

1720 St Buryan a child baptised to Peter and URSULA
1721 St Buryan a child baptised to Peter and ELIZABETH
1732 St Buryan a child baptised to Peter and JOAN

At least there is a marriage of Peter to Joan Permuen in 1731 to cater for the third one.

But no record that I can find so far for marriages to Ursula or Elizabeth.

A number of burials for Peter Dennis but none found for Ursula or Penelope.

And this is where we Groan in a Collective Manner!

Okay - groaning successfully completed.

The one major problem we have with the family at Sennen is that only the father's name was recorded for the baptisms and this opens the possibility that some of the children may belong to a different Peter Dennis.

On the other hand we have Peter and Elizabeth at St Buryan and this could be a PR error where the mother's name is incorrectly recorded.

It would not be the first time I have seen this!

And remember that the child's name was Elizabeth which is where this type of error often occurs.

There is certainly something amiss and the information you have posted here is obviously part of it .... as is the problem of Sennen with the mother's name not being recorded for the baptisms.

Pondering to be done!

CT

[mjsd]

With much thanks to donne for the link to the Cornwall Parish Registers!!

I had a look last night/this morning and have been able confirm the marriage of Peter Dennis and Penelope Head, dec 26 1718, Sennen. So far no luck in finding the 1717 marriage to Elizabeth.

I have confirmed the births and dates for most of the children. No mother is listed for John, Rachel, Sampson, Margaret or George and I can find no birth record at all (so far) for Richard (d 1742), and Peter (1718).

The most telling find so far is the record of the birth of Elizabeth Dennis, May 6 1721, St Buryan (pg 4/86 St Buryan Baptisms and Burials 1718-1812). It is very faint but lists both parents, Peter and his wife Elizabeth. Not Penelope Head as previously thought.

Thanks again to donne,

Malcolm

[Cornish Terrier]

And I can also confirm that Hannah Dennis was age 69 when buried and not 59 as transcribed.

In fairness to the transcribers the '6' is a little dubious with the lower left part of the figure lighter than the remainder.

But - there is no 'tail' as there would be with a five.

CT