|
Aliases
Nov 5, 2007 17:51:23 GMT -5
Post by myghaelangof on Nov 5, 2007 17:51:23 GMT -5
Back in the good old 16th/17th centuries many of us will have seen the use of aliases. Some describe the occupation, like I have found Benet the Miller in Keniggiacke who is later known as Bennet Bennetto.
We also find John Bosavern marrying Margery Arundell in St Just circa 1600, when John used to be plain John Thomas, of the hamlet of Bossaverne. Now I can understand people taking occupational and place name aliases, but can anyone come up with a plausible explanation for my 1659 marriage entry: John Shakerley alias Joan married Elizabeth Herland. It's a bit early for sex change ops, and there appears to be only one Shakerley family around. Although the baptism records are missing for the 1620's it would seem likely that John was the son of Bennet Shakerley and Margaret (nee Penberthy). Any thoughts anyone?
|
|
|
Aliases
Nov 6, 2007 13:11:39 GMT -5
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 6, 2007 13:11:39 GMT -5
Is it possible that this might refer to John being the illegitimate son of Joan Been thinking about this for about a half hour and it is the best I can come up with just now.
|
|
|
Aliases
Nov 6, 2007 17:25:37 GMT -5
Post by myghaelangof on Nov 6, 2007 17:25:37 GMT -5
I just started wondering about the possible illegitimacy last night. John doesnt show on the Protestation Return of 1641 unlike his 'brothers' Sampson and Arundell. There are various possibilities -
i) Out and out illegitimate ii) Bennet's first and only known wife died in 1631. he survived till 1649. It is possible he remarried, or had a child out of marriage after 1631. iii) John was a godson whose parents departed the scene and was 'adopted' iv) He was a member of another Shakerley family hitherto unidentified in Cornwall.
Previously we had reconciled ourselves with the fact that Sampson and Arundell both married in their early 30's and if John did the same in 1659 that would put his baptism in the missing period for St Just. Having delved more and more into aliases in general this past few days, I'm not so sure now.
Maybe we'll never know.
|
|
|
Aliases
Nov 12, 2007 10:12:54 GMT -5
Post by myghaelangof on Nov 12, 2007 10:12:54 GMT -5
Trouble with the period of time involving aliases is the absence of most records. I'm thinking that John Shakerley alias Jone was the son of Jone, either by Bennet, or more likely another unknown Shakerley who could have resided in any number of parishes in the early 1600's without coming to our attention.
Prime areas are The Isles of Scilly, where we find Shakerleys in 1651, and Sennen neighbouring St Just. I wonder about Sennen as John's son Thomas married Beaten Ellis, dgr of Henry Ellis. Whilst there were Ellis's in St Just I feel they had a strong (quaker) presence in Sennen.
Another complication with this family is that the marriage of Thomas in 1696 St Just is recorded as being John Shakerley to Beeten Ellis. However subsequent baptisms are to Thomas & Beeten. Perhaps the vicar made a mistake and recorded dads name?
Its all to easy for us 'amatuer' genealogists to find a surviving record and try to make it fit our known tree. Perhaps I'll never get to the bottom of this one!
|
|
|
Aliases
Nov 12, 2007 11:01:38 GMT -5
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 12, 2007 11:01:38 GMT -5
Interesting comments which we shall have to investigate further but I must comment on this:- Question - are these details recorded from the original PR or from a Transcript. (or even from BT's) If they are from the 'absolute' original PR then we need to question things. But it depends on the handwriting and it 'can' be easy to confuse the names of John (Jo., Jno., Tho., Thos.) and Thomas in these old documents. And I am now guessing that the 1696 marriage 'may' have been taken from Phillimore & Taylor where I have found some, but not many, errors over the years. If this is the case then I would suggest the original PR be viewed by someone who is very conversant with the handwriting of that time. If the data is from an 'original' it may also be a clerk's copy which could have been miswritten. Best I can do for now.
|
|
|
Aliases
Nov 12, 2007 17:55:46 GMT -5
Post by myghaelangof on Nov 12, 2007 17:55:46 GMT -5
Thank you Ian for making sure I keep on my toes. You're quite right, we have to be so careful with the source of information, as well as the deciphering of handwriting.
I've checked back through my records and I dont have a copy of the 1696 marriage. What I do have is a copy of the 1712 page of baptisms listing Thomas Shakerley's son Henry. And it takes some careful analysis to be sure it says Thomas. The 'T' has faded away and you could quickly mistake 'homas' as 'John' but comparison to other entries proves to me it says Thomas.
I must check the 1696 marriage entry, and the 1659 alias Jone, next time I'm in Truro.
On the subject of mis-read names, a few years ago on my Saltash Chubb family, I read an 1822 baptism as being son of 'William and Mary'. I subsequently obtained a birth certificate for the last child of the family in 1839 revealing mothers name as Nancy, and this threw me on a wild goose chase trying to find a later marriage of William to 'Nancy'. When I rechecked the entry a few years later I realised I was erroneous in transcribing Mary when it really was Nancy all along.
|
|
|
Aliases
Nov 13, 2007 8:29:23 GMT -5
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 13, 2007 8:29:23 GMT -5
So very easily done, mate. And it can sometimes be even easier to mis-read things once you have looked at enough and 'think' you know well enough not to be mistaken. (Been there and done that.) Glad I have helped just a little and will be interested to see the outcome. Ian
|
|