|
Post by sue on Feb 5, 2011 7:59:07 GMT -5
I have a Paul Curnow bptzd Towednack 9 March 1705, to parents Paul Curnow & Mary Woolcock who married Towednack 30 April 1701. The next Paul Curnow event I can find in the area is a marriage at Ludgvan to Sarah Ninnis 12 October 1756. I expect Sarah to be she baptized 14 Oct 1733 to John & Jane @ Towednack, making her probably 23 at the time of marriage. If husband Paul is he who was baptized 1705, he would be 51 at the time of marriage. They are buried 28 April 1791 and 19 January 1790 respectively at Towednack. If the above baptisms are correct, that would make them 86 and 57 at time of death. This couple had the following children: Paul 1757 Martha 1759 Jane 1760 Sarah 1763 Elizabeth 1764 Jacob 1767 Mary 1768 Ann 1771 Catherine 1772 Do I have a missing Paul Curnow somewhere, to be father to this brood? As opposed to Paul Curnow baptized 1705? I see Sarch mentions in the Leddras/Curnows/Paynter thread a marriage between Paul Curnow and Jane X 14 June 1730 Towednack; followed by the birth of a son Paul 1731 Ludgvan. This would fit very neatly. I can see a marriage of 14 Jun 1730 Ludgvan and a baptism 17 April 1731 Towednack referred to on IGI, I believe Ancestral Files. But: I can't see the marriage or the baptism in the Ludgvan or Towednack PRs, searching by either name or date. What I have searched is the CFHS transcriptions; and the transcriptions on West Pen Res; and OPC for any male 1st name P% in 1730 or 1731 any parish. (I even tried Saul – to no avail. ;D) The names indicate the family are perhaps related to Martha Curno who married Michael Baragwanna at Ladock 26 Jun 1731, had a son Michael baptized Towednack 22 Feb 1731, dad Michael B was buried 15 Oct 1731 at St Enoder. Although this predates son's baptism. (Jolly long way between Towednack & Ladock/St Enoder.) Anyway, Martha B widow marries Thomas Curnow 29 April 1734 Towednack. They have Martha 1736 Mary 1738 Thomas Jacob 1741 Thomas 1742 Elizabeth 1746 Matthew 1747 Jane 1751 I have seen argument that mother Martha is perhaps sister to Paul bptzd 1705 Towednack. Certainly there are not many Jacob Curnows around previously. I have Jacob son of Michael 1701 Towednack; a Jacob son of Richard Curnow & Blanch Stevens in father's will of 1742; and 1735 @ Phillack to John Curnow & Sarah Weymouth. But this is an aside! Jacobs another day! ….................................................................................................... Has anyone seen evidence for the marriage of Paul Curnow 1730, anywhere? And the baptism of a son Paul Curnow 1731, anywhere? Another Paul Curnow burial in the middle 1700s would be jolly handy too - but I mustn't be greedy! Sue
|
|
|
Post by white on Feb 5, 2011 8:16:18 GMT -5
The marriage of 1730 is not in Phillimores either.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Feb 5, 2011 13:00:29 GMT -5
Isn't it interesting that there is no record of that 1730 marriage in the Ludgvan Parish Registers? Equally interesting that the baptism of Paul Curnow in 1731 at Towednack cannot be found in the CFHS Baptism Index nor in the Hoblyn Transcript! It is also extremely suspicious how events 'just happen' to occur just at the age always indicated by IGI when they are guessing! Paul Curnow s/o Paul and Mary baptised 9th March 1705Paul Curnow marries Jane (unknown) 14th June 17301730 minus 1705 equals 25Well I'll be - exactly the age all males are supposed to be married according to IGI when they cannot find information! But it gets better! Son Paul is baptised 17th April 1731 and then marries Sarah Ninnes 12th October 1756 Yippee! We get Paul being married at age 25 ... just like dear old Dad! How bloody convenient!!!!! I am guessing that the author of this work (Yes, correct - Ancestral File) would not be willing to stand up in front of a National audience with Bible firmly clutched in hand and swear on oath that all information is true and correct! And the reason why they would not be prepared to do that is because I believe the whole lot is a huge crock of bird droppings! IF the 1730 and 1731 events did actually happen then it was not at Towednack or Ludgvan as stated. I will try to give my version of events in a following post. CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Feb 5, 2011 13:23:16 GMT -5
Sue - following is the version of events that I came up with several years ago.
I spent quite a lot of time on this and had discussions with Bill Curnow before coming to a 'reasonable solution based on available evidence'.
Paul Curnow married Mary Woolcock 30th April 1701 and there are four recorded children for them:-
Mary bp. 26th July 1702 Towednack Mary bp. 29th May 1704 Towednack Paul bp. 9th March 1705 Towednack Ezekiel buried 11th January 1720 Towednack
With the gaps in Towednack records between 1707 and 1719 there is scope for the baptisms of other children as well as burials. In fact the few years prior to 1707 have few enough entries to suggest there may be even more information missing.
Using what evidence was available and working through the Curnow families in the area it was determined that there was very likely at least one other daughter - MARTHA.
I believe this is the Martha Curnow who married Michael Baragwanath at Ladock in 1731 and then married Thomas Curnow at Towednack in 1734.
Thomas CURNOW married Martha BARAGWANATH, widow 29th April 1734 at Towednack
The first recorded child of this marriage is Martha who was baptised at St Ives 29th December 1736.
Thre is a gap of 18 months between the marriage and the baptism of Martha and I believe it is likely that this is where Paul Curnow belongs.
Paul would therefore be born about 1735 and then married Sarah Ninnes in 1736.
The other problem here is the identity of Thomas Curnow and the most likely scenario (back then) suggested that he was probably the Thomas baptised at St Ives 25th March 1694 son of Thomas Curnow and Margery Dyer.
With so much information missing I cannot guarantee these conclusions but it is a good working scenario based on the known information and available data.
I do need to look at the whole scenario again in view of the fact that there is now so much more information available. However I don't know that there would be much change to my thinking on the links.
CT
|
|
|
Post by sue on Feb 5, 2011 14:16:23 GMT -5
Well that works for me! Writing up Ancestral Files with an imputed year & place of birth is One Thing; actually naming a fictitious PR date is Quite Another. These 'ere Curnows I'm writing up currently always have a child baptized within a few months of marriage - so Martha would be out of step if there wasn't a missing child 1734ish! Slotting in a Paul in 1734 named for Martha's dad as a 1st boy - I believe Martha if daughter of Paul Curnow & Mary Woolcock would then have as her 2nd husband her probable 1st cousin Thomas Curnow - who goes on to marry Sarah Ninnis 12 Oct 1756 Ludgvan and has suitably named children (except no Thomas) also explains well why the name Jacob was used, named for Paul's brother; and Paul then dies at a more average age of 56/57 at time of Towednack burial 28 April 1791. I am slowly working through some of the Curnow St Ives transcriptions done "recently" CT (thankyou!) which is what caused my query. And I haven't yet found anything to overturn the hypothesis of Martha (widow) Baragnawath's husband Thomas Curnow being son of Thomas Curnow & Margery Hicks/Dyer.... THanks. Sue
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Feb 5, 2011 21:55:52 GMT -5
Sue - there is one very curious item I forgot to mention. The marriage record at Ladock for Michael Baragwanna shows his bride transcribed as Martha CARTHEW in a set of transcriptions I located via 'krisesjoint' on Rootsweb. I now see that the OPC has it as CURNO. As I said - it is pretty much all a 'working hypothesis' based on the available information. But I can guarantee that a lot of thought and effort went into it and it is certainly the best and most plausible scenario that could be arrived at when it was don. CT
|
|
|
Post by rogerC41 on Jun 17, 2018 5:48:45 GMT -5
Seven years since the last post on this thread and maybe I should start a new one, except I don't know how. I am trying to "locate" a DNA link in the real world. The link is fairly nebulous ~ 6 generations. It is between me and B. I am to be found at the bottom of this "tree" of mostly Towedanack and then Australia Curnows.
Thomas Curnow (1588-1643) / Robert Curnow (d.1685) / Robert Curnow (ca.1666-1745) / Robert Curnow (1695-1771) Stephen Curnow (1755-1837) / Robert Curnow (1805-1856) / Robert Curnow (1831-1916) / Robert Solomon Curnow (1858-1935) Andrew Bertram Curnow (1911-2003) / Roger John Curnow (1941 living) [these last two being Australian born].
B. can be traced back to Francis Richards Lander and Jane Curnow married 21 May 1850 St Ives.
We presume the link must be via Jane. When I try to trace Jane back I encounter a string of Pauls which is why I am posting to this thread.
I have, or thought I had Jane born 1824 St Ives. her father Paul b. St Ives 17 April 1792 his father Paul b. St Ives (1757-1796) (and mother Honor Leddra (1758)) his father Paul b. Ludgvan 1731 (and mother Sarah Ninnes (1733))
and beyond that with less certainty, more Pauls.
Can I link B.'s Pauls with my Roberts or should I be searching for a non- Curnow.
thanks to anyone who can help.
roger
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jun 17, 2018 6:49:44 GMT -5
Hi Roger - the line from Jane Curnow back to Paul and Sarah is correct as far as I have been able to work out so if there is a link then it lies elsewhere. There are some options you could look at.
1. double check your own line which I see shows a lot of Roberts. It is possible that there may be something not quite right there. 2. each generation adds another female line so you would need to check out each of those to see if there is a link. 3. consider the possibility that there is no link at all and that the DNA 'match' is erroneous.
I have only fairly recently started on the DNA road so don't know a heck of a lot about it yet but I do know that I keep getting 4th-6th generation matches and so far I can not find any possible links at all to most of them.
CT
|
|
|
Post by sue on Jun 17, 2018 15:02:55 GMT -5
If you are 100% certain Robert Curnow, baptized Towednack 13 Feb 1859 of Chylasson to Robert & Jane is you GG(G?)father (I have this chap immigrating to Australia as a carman in 1879 from shipping documents seen), then the line you have for your Robert Curnows is agreed (albeit I wouldn't agree some of the approximated dates.) Back at Thomas Curnow who died 1643, yes the Paul & Robert Curnows linkup - but so do 10,000s, probably 100,000s of people........ But there are so so many possibilities as to how you apparently have DNA links to person B. A statistician would doubtless be able to put an approximate figure on the number of possible persons the link , if it exists, could be through. Painstakingly mapping, via bmb records, wills etc., the female lines of each generation would be needed. I agree with CT. Sue
|
|
|
Post by rogerC41 on Jun 17, 2018 17:50:52 GMT -5
Hi Sue
I am absolutely certain that "Robert Curnow, baptized Towednack 13 Feb 1859 of Chylasson to Robert & Jane is" my Grandfather. Hence I can get me back to Thomas (d. 1643). What I can't do is get from Paul Curnow (b. April 1792) on B's line back to Thomas.
Before I grew too old to think I was a statistician (of sorts) and realize the number of possible links; it would in fact be amazing if there isn't more than one actual link. But I haven't played the search-for-ancestors game for maybe 10 years and one starts with the names one recognizes. Next, Richards and Quicks.
Hi CT (and Sue)
I used to think (15 or so years ago that the three Roberts
Robert Curnow (d.1685) / Robert Curnow (ca.1666-1745) / Robert Curnow (1695-1771) in my line should be two, but I thought what I wrote above was accepted these days.
DNA is new to me also but it has revived my interest.
all help gratefully received.
roger
|
|
|
Post by zibetha on Jun 18, 2018 0:53:37 GMT -5
A brief note on the DNA part of this: I have had incredible success with 4-6 cousin matches. They've led me to cousins in Australia on more than one Cornish branch where my research was dead-ended, helped me find family in Sweden, determine that a child born before marriage did or did not descend from both "parents" and verified the identity of an orphaned American great-grandfather who knew nothing of his family history even though he was raised by his mother and stepfather. Like you, Roger, I start with a familiar name if I can spot one.
The kicker for me has been shared DNA matches that at least help me assign someone to a branch of the family even if I can't identify them based on the information they share. I have very few 4-6 cousin matches that I know nothing about. With a 6th cousin, you have 5x great grandparents in common. That does take you back a good bit on your tree. Sometimes published trees contain paper trail errors, but the DNA is true. Occasionally, I have found people assigning their test to a spouse for privacy reasons (not nice) and I have encountered a few "non-parental events" that I am still trying to figure out.
I have only 241 matches at 4-6th cousin level of which just 5 are on my father's side.
You may have multiple links; have you checked the information "button" to see centiMorgan and segment detail, Roger?
Zib
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jun 18, 2018 5:01:42 GMT -5
Roger - the link back from Paul Curnow of 1792 (m. Jane Hosking) involves more than one period for which records are missing but I believe it goes as follows:- Paul Curnow (1792) m. Jane Hosking Paul Curnow (1757 Ludgvan) m. Honor Leddra Paul Curnow m. Sarah Ninnes <============= Thomas Curnow (1694 St Ives) m1. Martha Curnow Thomas Curnow m. Margery Dyer (baptism and marriage both missing) Thomas Curnow m. Jone Painter Thomas Curnow m. Joan Martin Thomas Curnow (d. 1643) m. Catherine What concerns me is that your DNA match apparently shows a link about six generations back whereas a direct line back from your Robert Curnow and B's Paul Curnow does not seem to link until several generations before that. That would indicate that there must be another link somewhere. After looking back through the line above I would think that the problem must lie with the identity of Paul Curnow who married Sarah Ninnes in 1756. I need Sue to have another good look at this because to be the son of Thomas Curnow and Martha Curnow this Paul should have been baptized in the 1730s for which period most of the PRs are okay. I very much doubt he was born after 1736 so his logical place in the family would be as eldest child born around 1734/5. But I wonder now if he may have been born a little earlier but not be a son of Thomas Curnow. In other words I am now wondering if Paul might have been an illegitimate son of Martha Curnow prior to her 1731 first marriage to Michael Baragwanath. If that were correct then your link with 'B' would be via the marriage of Thomas Curnow and Jone Painter at Towednack in 1670. (We don't have a baptism for Martha Curnow either but I am sure she had to have been the daughter of Paul Curnow and Mary Woolcock.) I will wait until we hear back from Sue about this before going any further. CT
|
|
|
Post by sue on Jun 18, 2018 14:20:01 GMT -5
Roger, I am very glad to hear you were a variation on a statistician; that means you won’t be having flights of fancy! Ok, trying to respond to CT’s thoughts: Paul Curnow who married Sarah Ninnis 12 October 1756 Ludgvan, then had 1st child Paul Curnow, mariner & Trinity Serviceman, baptized 24 June 1757 Ludgvan: with there not, apparently, being a baptism for this Paul who went on to marry Sarah Ninnis, yet they had many attempts at a son Thomas, I placed him as son of Thomas & Martha for reasons including the sons called Thomas, but mainly because he was named administrator of Jacob Curnow 20/9/1741 – early 1762’s estate (son of Thomas & Martha, believed died at sea), which would very much be the role for oldest brother. (Jacob was a son of Thomas & Martha.) Given the spacings between the other children of Thomas & Martha and that a person needed to be over 21 to undertake adult responsibilities, that places Paul Curnow’s birth c1734, perhaps not so many months after Thomas & Martha’s marriage of 28 April 1734, as was often the way! otherwise Thomas 7 Martha's 1st child was not until Martha in 1736, which was quite a while post marriage for those days.... It is my belief that Martha Curnow~Baragnawath was baptized 29 May 1704 with erroneous PR entry as Mary: to parents Paul Curnow and Mary Woolcock. There were no known grandsons via Paul & Mary’s sons who would have carried on that line, hence that gives “a” reason for Thomas & Martha naming their 1st child together after Martha’s father, before naming a son after Thomas’ father. Martha’s 1st marriage lasted just 15 months, 1731-32, & produced 1 child Michael named for father Michael Baragnawath. Yes, Martha had time to have an illegitimate Paul Curnow before marrying Michael Baragnawath in 1731 when she was 27. But I haven’t seen many instances of single mothers naming their illegitimate son after their father, it seems to me that privilege was reserved for legitimate children. So, whilst acknowledging we're not sure why a baptism for Paul Curnow c1734 is missing, I don't favour the thought that he might be a much earlier illegitimate son of Martha's. Sue
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jun 18, 2018 16:08:26 GMT -5
Hi Sue - yes, that does sound reasonable and is the conclusion you and I came to some time back. It was looking at this 'new' problem earlier tonight that prompted the thought of Paul being a possible illegitimate son of Martha. Actually, whichever way I look at it I still have the same problem with the lack of a baptism as Paul was almost certainly born sometime after 1720 but before 1736 - our main problem with missing PRs for Towednack is between 1704 and 1720.
In any case, with Martha Curnow as the mother of Paul it does bring the DNA link between Roger and 'B' forward a few generations and a little closer to a possible 6th generation common ancestor. But I still think Roger should look at all the other maternal families in both lines.
CT
|
|
|
Post by rogerC41 on Jun 19, 2018 20:39:52 GMT -5
Thanks CT and Sue for putting far more work into my question than it deserved. B. and I will be happy to remain nth cousins with n >= 6 plus a couple of times removed.
Extra thanks to Sue who has given me a wake up call on the subject of a second family link and cross links and how they show up in DNA results. With all those second and third cousins marrying (especially in the Towednack area)there must be cross links.
Can atDNA results differ between a 4th cousin link and two independent 5th cousin links? Both I suspect would have 1 in 2 to the 5th DNA in common.
But this is not the thread to discuss such things.
Hi Zib a DNA thread is needed and you would be a good person to start it.
Perhaps under "Chy-an-coweth".
roger
|
|