Peter Curnow's will of 1750

[petitpois]

Hello again,
I'm thinking that Peter Curnow who wrote his will in 1750 and named numerous cousins, was the grandson of Thomas Curnow and Joan Painter and that his father would have been Matthew Curnow, father of Catherine b 1720 who married Matthew Stevens in 1738. (His sister is said to be Catherine Stevens)
This theory seems to fit in very well with having Ninnes cousins, the right names for Richard's sons and for his son, Matthew's, children (apart from Ann whom I didn't know about but who could certainly fit in between Mary and the will being written).
Does this seem to be right?
Look forward to seeing what you think,
Cheers,
Di

[petitpois]

OOps. Sorry, I got the bit about Peter's sister wrong - her married name was Martins, not Stevens, but father Matthew and the rest may be the Ok. Sorry if I've confused you.
Di

[sue]

Well then Di, let me just check where you're coming from....

Right, tortoise & hare.........

You were at the 2nd marriage to Rachel Martins of Jacob Curnow who had been bptzd 1722 St Ives to parents Richard Curnow and Blanch Stevens.

No, I don't agree with your statement that Peter Curnow of the will of 1750 was a grandson of Thomas Curnow and Jone Painter.

Not sure why you would think that.

A lot of very careful mapping of the early Curnows in the Towednack and surrounds area needs to be done before placing people, as there's not a huge variation in names used & families married into!!

It could be that the use of the term “cosin” in the will has thrown you a bit. “Cosin” covered a wide range of relatives, including once removed cousins, great-nieces and nephews, and so on........!

Since the Peter of the 1750 will left no bequests to children of his own or to a wife, it seems to me that – whilst not discounting that he could have been a single man all his life - a good starting place would be to look for a marriage of a Peter Curnow, then a burial of a lady by that spouse's name.

And it needs to be a marriage without there having been children baptized; or children still apparently alive in 1750.

If you do that research, I think you will fairly quickly find that Peter of the 1750 will was of an older generation than you are thinking.

I think that should help you work out for yourself where your thinking has gone off course – would be no fun or satisfaction for you in exploring these different people named in the will, if I just gave you what I believe to be the “answer” on this one!! ;D

But if you have a look-see for early Peter Curnows, marriages etc. as I've suggested above, & then look carefully at who all the people named in this will are, then a picture emerges as to how Peter Curnow the testator is likely to fit in as a relative.

Sue

Big P.S. You have reasonably established Richard Curnow & Blanch Stevens as your line. Who do you think Richard Curnow's parents were? i.e. what baptism do you have for him, and who was the wife of that father named at the baptism?

[petitpois]

Ok, Sue, now that you have explained that "Cosin" can extend to other relatives it simplifies things no end, thank you. That now makes Peter the son of Thomas & Jane's, born 1675, whose sister Catherine married John Martins. (Sister: Catherine Martins 1st beneficiary of the will)
The next 3 beneficiaries would be his nephews, William, John & Isaac Ninnes, sons of his sister Jane, who first married William Ninnes.
The next 3 are his nephews, Richard, Jacob & Peter Curnow, the younger sons of his brother Richard & Blanch Stevens.
The next 2 are his nieces Jane and Jone nee Daniels, the elder daughters of his sister Jane by her second husband, Vivian Daniels.
The next is his nephew Matthew Curnow, eldest son of brother Richard who is married to Mary, the youngest daughter of Jane Daniels (apparently she doesn't need to get a bequest because her husband & children do)
The next 2 are his great nieces, Mary & Ann, the daughters of Matthew & Mary above. (I've since found Ann's baptism on IGI)
The last 2 are his great-nephews Richard & Mathew, older sons of Matthew & Mary. (The youngest Peter wasn't born until after the will was proved.)

All nieces and nephews are named exactly in birth order in their families with the exception of Matthew & Mary who are placed at the end and leading on to their own children.

There is no mention of his wife, Ann, because she died in 1741 and they are not known to have had any children of their own.

[sue]

Yes, appreciating that the use of the term cosin was pretty wide opens doors – too many, sometimes!

Where did you find a 1675 birth/baptism for Peter Curnow to Thomas & Jane, please?

I haven't found one.

IGI does have a 3 August 1675 baptism for Peter Cornew. That is to John, in Okehampton Devon...

Sue

[petitpois]

I was just checking on the source of Peter's baptism, too. My cousins have gathered heaps of information, usually spot on, including that one and I was just trying to locate where it came from as well. I'll let you know when I find out.
Cheers,
Di

[Cornish Terrier]

1675 is a 'surmised' approximate year of birth for Peter Curnow and the information may have come from myself or Bill Curnow perhaps.

I don't recall exactly but after looking at the family again I would think that 1675 may have been deduced from Wills. Certainly the Will of Peter himself helped piece together some of his family but there is still much that is not known.

In fact of the supposed children of Thomas and Jone we have a baptism only for son Richard who was baptised at Towednack 20th October 1683.

The name Peter is believed to have come from the Painter family which gives the link to Thomas and Jone and if Peter belongs then then so too does Catherine who was named as his sister when he wrote his Will.
Reference to 'cosins' Ninnes infers that Jane Curnow, wife of William Ninnes, was also a sister.
'Cosins' Richard and Matthew sons of Matthew Curnow were grandsons of Richard Curnow and Blanch Stevens. That then leads to the conclusion that Richard must also be a brother.

CT

[petitpois]

Sue,
I confirmed with my sources that in this case 1675 was an estimate based on the will and the date of his parents' marriage in 1670 and sister, Jane's, estimated age when she first married in 1691 and that of her sister Catherine when she appears to have married c.1701/2.
Di

[sue]

Thanks for coming back on this.

I wondered if you'd unearthed a record from 1675 that others had failed to find over the years!

Call me a stickler, but I think it's kinda important not to quote an estimate as if it's fact, because other people then replicate it as fact in ignorance of the reality.

And so family researchers get further & further away from The Truth!

Bit like copying someone else's tree as it it were an actual original historical source document or transcription of a document!

As CT said in his last, there's a lot not known about this family back in those days.

Teasing out a puzzle anew from the available actual facts can sometimes throw up a different "answer" than others have come to in the past, as happened when we looked at Michael Curnows a year or two ago.

And that's a really good feeling!

Sue