St Austell area about 1699(ish)

[getafish460]

Not so much a query regarding a Penwith family moving out, more of a St Austell area family moving in. To Illogan to be precise.......

John CARPENTAR, bpt 14 Aug 1708 in Illogan,

son of......

Richard CARPENTAR and Elizabeth NANCARROE, who were married in St Austell on 4 June 1699,

I believe that Richard hailed from Luxulyan, but I'm not 100% on that,

Elizabeth seems to be the daughter of John NANCARRE and Alice COODE who were married in 1640 (that'll need triple checking though, too!!??)

and that's all I've got and been able to ascertain,

Can anyone assist, or is this a "dead thread" due to lack of surviving records?

Any help that can be provided.......much thankings!!!!

Ted ;D

[Cornish Terrier]

Ted - there is nothing in the St Austell transcriptions to suggest that richard Carpenter was from anywhere but St Austell but all that means is that he was probably resident of that Parish at the time of his marriage.

Luxulyan is a neighbouring Parish as well so it may be that he originated there.

As for Elizabeth Nancarrow (sic.) - if she married in 1699 it might be a fair stretch to believe that her parents were married 60 years previously!

A search of FamilySearch shows only one Elizabeth Nancarroe baptised between 1655 and 1688:-

Elizabeth daughter of John Nancarroe by Alise his wife 14th April 1684

In fact extending that search from 1640-1688 produces an identical result. But on looking at the St Austell transcriptions again it would appear simply that IGI/FamilySearch may not have yet managed to catch up with St Austell.

From the St Austell Transcriptions I can offer:-

Elizabeth daughter of Robert Nancarroe bp. 27th November 1681

She would have been about 18 when married but she is also the only Nancarroe (sic.) at St Austell until you get back to Peter baptised in 1665.
But there are also quite a lot of Nancarroe marriages at Illogan including that of Richard Nancarroe to Elizabeth in 1676. That may indicate another link that brought Richard and Elizabeth to Illogan.

CT

[getafish460]

Thanks CT
Have we got marriage details for either John and Alise (Alice) or Robert?. I may have scribed a dodgey date there, as what you suggest makes perfect sense unless both Alice and Elizabeth were quite old brides (which I agree is a stretch of the imagination) especially as either went on to have at least one child (or I wouldn't be here) (maybe I'm not here?? who am I? why am I? what's occurin'? my brain hurts!!)
Ted

[Cornish Terrier]

How about -

John NANCARROW married Alice COADE at St Keverne 15th June 1669

That would make them the parents of Elizabeth who was baptised at St Keverne in 1684. And that then means that Elizabeth would have been only about 15 when she married unless her baptism had been delayed.
Alice is the youngest of six children I can find at St Keverne although she is the only when where the mother is named. The previous child was 1679 so it is possible she was not baptised straight away but I think in those days it would have been more likely in those days that baptisms would have been reasonably prompt.

No marriage for Robert Nancarrow evident in in FamilySearch or the OPC site.

CT

[getafish460]

I've got her as Alice COODE, but I'm aware of spelling anomalies.
I've also got her down as daughter of Tho. COODE and Jullian LAWRENCE, but no other details than that.
John Nancarre (sic) who married Alice, I've got down as the son of another John NANCARRE and Jane RETSON, but, again, I've no details of BDM for any of them.
That's as far as I've been able to get, with the limited resources available to me, and the **%!! security restrictions on this **%!!?? computer!! (expletives deleted!)
Thanks again for all your help
Ted

[Cornish Terrier]

The way I see it is that we cannot be comfortable with the possibility that Elizabeth was just 15 when she married.
It was quite legal and no doubt did happen but I would be looking to exhaust the possibilities of other options before heading down a path that might be full of brambles.

CT

[getafish460]

I would venture that there is a possibility that her "condition" may have had a bearing on only being 15,which may not have reached its full term, but alas we may never know. It is also to be borne in mind that she was nearly 16 and that may have seemed more "acceptable". Of course it can only be conjecture but the family may have seized on the "best offer" at the time to marry off their youngest daughter, especially if a dowry was becoming more hard to find. Like you, I think all other possibilites need to be exhausted before any conclusions are made.
Many thanks for your continued efforts and assistance.
Ted