Post by Zenobia on May 13, 2007 15:50:02 GMT -5
The other day I abstracted the will of William Nennis of Perranuthnoe (1664).
When I returned home, I discovered I already had an abstract of it in one of my databases, but had missed one key point.
And that key point has proved very puzzling:
William named as one of his overseers "brother-in-law Christopher Cock of St. Erth".
William Ninnes was fairly elderly when he died in 1664; his children were born in the 1610s and 1620s. There were two Christopher Cocks - father and son, and it was the elder one who was contemporary with William Nennis. He was known to live at St. Erth in the 1660s.
Now, Christopher's wife could not be William Nennis' sister, as it was known that his wife was Jane Penhellick, and she survived him. William's wife was called Jane, and Christopher Cock did not have a sister named Jane (his father's will is extant and names all the children). Nor did Jane Penhellick have a sister also called Jane.
A step-relationship also seems out of question, since enough is known of Christopher's origins to suggest his parents were both only married once.
At this point the only possibility seems to be that perhaps William's wife Jane (whose maiden surname is unknown) may have a brother who married a sibling of Christopher Cock or Jane Penhellick.
Another oddity is that there was a known relationship between William and Christopher, but not one that has a name in Western culture. Christopher's daughter Margery was married to William's son David.
Could that be the basis for calling a man "brother-in-law"?
Comments welcome.
When I returned home, I discovered I already had an abstract of it in one of my databases, but had missed one key point.
And that key point has proved very puzzling:
William named as one of his overseers "brother-in-law Christopher Cock of St. Erth".
William Ninnes was fairly elderly when he died in 1664; his children were born in the 1610s and 1620s. There were two Christopher Cocks - father and son, and it was the elder one who was contemporary with William Nennis. He was known to live at St. Erth in the 1660s.
Now, Christopher's wife could not be William Nennis' sister, as it was known that his wife was Jane Penhellick, and she survived him. William's wife was called Jane, and Christopher Cock did not have a sister named Jane (his father's will is extant and names all the children). Nor did Jane Penhellick have a sister also called Jane.
A step-relationship also seems out of question, since enough is known of Christopher's origins to suggest his parents were both only married once.
At this point the only possibility seems to be that perhaps William's wife Jane (whose maiden surname is unknown) may have a brother who married a sibling of Christopher Cock or Jane Penhellick.
Another oddity is that there was a known relationship between William and Christopher, but not one that has a name in Western culture. Christopher's daughter Margery was married to William's son David.
Could that be the basis for calling a man "brother-in-law"?
Comments welcome.