Maddern origins

[maddernancestry]

I'm after any info from 1500 to 1841 on family names Cossen, Maderne-Cossen, Maderne, Maddern, Madron.
Great if anyone can help determine or not whether they are ALL from same family - Paul Maddern

[Cornish Terrier]

That may be difficult to determine. If you do a search on Goggle for 'maddern surname origins' you will find most 'hits' relate to the Madden family originating in Ireland. One of those even suggested the possibility that it may have been one of these who ventured to Cornwall.

Pawley-White suggests the name in Cornwall derives from the town or parish of Madron hence the several variations of the name which inclde Maaderne, Maddern and Madron.

CT

[maddernancestry]

Yep, been on Google and found a lot of incorrect stuff. Name of the Maddern church and Well came from a Saint in 6th (?)century, likely Ireland or Brittany. But "Visitations of 1620" shows origin of highest-profile Maddern family of that time, likely the only Maddern family according to Madron Parish Register. Biggest question is whether other families also adopted the surname then or subsequently - I personally doubt this but am seeking evidence.

Madden surname is Irish origin, Maddern is "of Madron" and quite different. Quite a few mixups have been due to mis-transcriptions into census databases. Can you give me that Pawley-White reference CT ?

The search continues ........

[Cornish Terrier]

Wilst the place Madron (sic.) appears in the Domesday book in 1086 and we know of its existence from at least that date the common use of surnames did not begin until much later.

This from Wikipaedia:-
In Britain, hereditary surnames were adopted in the 13th and 14th centuries, initially by the aristocracy but eventually by everyone.[citation needed] By 1400, most English and some Scottish people used surnames,

So it was around 200 years after Domesday that surnames began to be adopted in Britain and probably a hundred years after that before they were at all in common use. The Madron Parish Registers show that even as in the 16th Century not all people were using surnames.

I suspect therefore that it is doubtful that all people sharing the Maddern (sic.) surname would be related.

I don't know if Pawley-White is available in digitized form. I purchased my copy of the book from Gould Books in South Australia many years ago.

A Handbook of Cornish Surnames (Enlarged Edition) - G. Pawley White
Published by Dyllansow Truran - Cornish Pulbications
Trewolsta, Trewirgie, Redruth 216796 (Second Impression, December 1984) (First published July 1972)
ISBN No. 0 9506431 9 X

There are other Cornish surname books available as well and I think at least one of those might be online.

CT

[maddernancestry]

Thanks CT - are you still in SA ? that bastion of Cornish descendants?

I have seen similar books but I haven't found at what time surnames became both "stable" and universally used. Have you seen anything on this issue?

I suspect it was during the latter half of 16th century as the laws of Henry VIII and subsequent regents requiring records to be kept were slowly put into practise. In a society where the church was so dominant it is unlikely that people changed their surnames once recorded in Parish Registers, whereas prior to this it was not uncommon. The early Madron register does include a few records without surname, so is it not reasonable to expect it would also make note of the first use of any newly adopted or changed name? I haven't seen any, so does this imply that the surnames recorded had been established for some time?

You may think it doubtful about common Maddern relations(& that's not unreasonable), someone has told me they have evidence I am wrong (but they aren't as yet sharing it), but our theory has a sound basis that is yet to be proved or disproved (as with all theories) by more facts. It has been shown for another Madron Parish family (http://www.argallfamilyworldwide.com ), and I think the basis for this also being the case with Maddern is probably even stronger.

At present I am not trying to set out the argument for our theory, I am trying to bring together facts already held by independent researchers into a combined effort that can perhaps methodically solve this great Sudoku puzzle. So if any readers can contribute, please do.

[Cornish Terrier]

Thanks CT - are you still in SA ?

No, I am in Victoria ...... where I have always been.

I have been to SA a couple of times though and also travelled across the Nullabor to Perth.

Stability of surnames - all I can offer on that is what I wrote in my last.
But I would still be very doubtful that all Cornish Madderns (sic.) would be related. Madron, as you indicate, was known as far back as the 6th Century but surnames did not start coming into general use until the 15th or 16th Centuries so there is around a thousand years to be considered.

The surname Maddern (sic.) seems to be a locational name which means that as surnames were adopted many people living at or near Madron would have taken that as their surname. But that does not imply that all people in that area did the same as there would no doubt have been Millers, (black)Smiths, Masons, Weavers etc. so many names would have been taken from their occupation. And of course there would have been patronymic names such as Andrews, Johns and so on.

Over the course of a thousand years there would also have been a certain percentage of the population that was fluid so you would have to assume a number of people from other areas eventually settled at Madron and, therefore, also took that as their name once surnames began to be used. No doubt also there would have been people from Madron who ventured away and settled elsewhere. Some of those people may have decided to call themselves Maddern but there may well have been those who did not.

So I really don't think it is an argument anyone could win!

CT

[maddernancestry]

CT - quite valid points, and I really appreciate your informed conversation. But if correct then one would expect many more Maddern "lines" to show up in the first Registers of Madron and surrounding parishes if the name had been adopted as you suggest.

Also, in the Cornwall Muster of 1569 only 3 Madderns (sic) are recorded in the Madron Parish and 1 in Sancreed (per OPC records) - so I think the argument is at least worth pursuing, especially for me as I share that surname. My father did a lot of research in 1980's and I am seeking to resolve some of his necessary "best assumptions" and possible errors with the availability these days of so much more info like this. And of course DNA testing now exists as the final arbiter if necessary.

[Cornish Terrier]

But if correct then one would expect many more Maddern "lines" to show up in the first Registers of Madron and surrounding parishes

That may be true but we have already mentioned the existence of records in those registers where no surname was recorded. I already mentioned the likes of 'son of John the Miller' but then there are also entries for '[name]ye servant of .....'.

I tend to be a bit of a devil's advocate I suppose and find every reason I can to show why something can or might not be. But at least if all of those 'can nots/might nots' can be eliminated then surely the correct solution must be near.

You are taking the right approach in trying to ensure the correctness of your father's work but then you probably need to choose a point in time (perhaps the 1851 Census) and then list all of the name born in Cornwall. From there you would need to trace each and every one back as far as possible and see what you end up with.
Remember that family members may have been in other Parishes even as early as the 16th Century. Records for Sennen and St Levan prior to 1700 are lost and for St Buryan there are problems such as severe damage to early records, some early records lost and gaps in registers during the Civil War period.

Wills may survive and then beyond registers you would have to venture into medieval records and land documents. Big job ahead but it is worth it if you enjoy it.

CT

[maddernancestry]

Is the 1851 better than 1841 for any reason?

Yes, incompleteness of Registers is biggest problem, but we do have a 'top-down' starting point with the Visitations and the Muster that can be used along with the 'bottom-up' approach. If our theory is correct we already know the starting person.

"Big job" - yes, which is why I seek help from anyone who has already done their 'bottom-up' tree as far as possible - but it seems no one else yet from this website.

[tenpoundpom]

Aug 20, 2013 4:38:25 GMT -5 maddernancestry said:

Is the 1851 better than 1841 for any reason?

Yes, incompleteness of Registers is biggest problem, but we do have a 'top-down' starting point with the Visitations and the Muster that can be used along with the 'bottom-up' approach. If our theory is correct we already know the starting person.

"Big job" - yes, which is why I seek help from anyone who has already done their 'bottom-up' tree as far as possible - but it seems no one else yet from this website.

1851 included relationships, age at time of census, and place of birth. In the 1841 census adult ages usually (but not always) were rounded down to the nearest 5 years, and the place of birth was either of the county or not. Relationships were not stated.

[maddernancestry]

Thanks - just checked my direct family in both and that's exactly what I found - adults ages rounded but kids not; hadn't realised it was the general case.

PM

[Cornish Terrier]

In 1841 ages of adults were required only to the nearest five years which was usually rounded down. As you have noticed the ages of children were generally their actual age although that also varied.

But the one thing you may not be aware of is that 'adults' were determined as being age 15 and above! Hence you will see numerous families with two or more children age 15. This is not because they were twins but purely because they were all aged 15 or above.

CT

[maddernancestry]

"'adults' were determined as being age 15 and above" - due to legal age of consent or marriage ? certainly not the working age as there were 12 & 14 y.o. sons in family listed as "Miner-Tin".

Is the marriage age considered useful in determining ancestral 'can nots/might nots' ? Can anyone tell me what the marriage age/s were in 17th & 18th centuries, and whether legal or religious?

PM

[Cornish Terrier]

I am not really sure why 15 was the age chosen and as you say there are 12 and 14 year olds recorded as miners. But there are also children younger than that and even as young as about 8 who are servants and, occasionally, miners. So 15 was probably deemed the beginning of adulthood or maybe something to do with puberty. I really don't know.

As for marital age - probably best to Google on that one. I did that a good while back and you will find a lot of information about the laws in different countries and at different times.
I think in Britain it was 14 for males and 12 for females at one period and age 14 I think was legal for females up until probably less than a couple of hundred years ago. But you will also find that anyone marrying at those ages probable came from the upper classes with marriages arranged due to wealth, position, inheritance and the like.

My general rule of thumb when searching for a first marriage is to use 16 as the lower age. So far I don't think I have any female under that age and certainly no males under 16 at marriage.
But don't get trapped into thinking that a first marriage bearing children means that both parties were around 16-25. A woman could be 40 at first marriage and still have children and there are plenty of examples. And there are males who have married well into their sixties, and sometimes beyond, and have fathered children. Again, plenty of examples.

Also, don't get trapped into the IGI philosphy of 'Male 25, Female 21' at marriage. In IGI you will find user-submitted data showing approximate birth ages for people involved in a marriage and these ages generally are 25 years (male) and 21 years (female) prior to the marriage date.
Often the male is older and often both parties are the same age but there are also plenty of younger men who married woman 15 and 20 years older than themselves!

For women having children my rule of thumb is age 16 at the lower end and age 48 for the last child. So far that has proved to be quite an accurate range with perhaps one, or maybe two, who may have been 49.
Once I start looking at under 15 or over 48 for the woman having a child I begin to think about the possibilities of another couple with the same names or I look at the period between children, particularly those last two, to determine the possibility of a late baptism.

CT

[trencrom]

Aug 20, 2013 4:38:25 GMT -5 maddernancestry said:

Yes, incompleteness of Registers is biggest problem, but we do have a 'top-down' starting point with the Visitations and the Muster that can be used along with the 'bottom-up' approach. If our theory is correct we already know the starting person.

"Big job" - yes, which is why I seek help from anyone who has already done their 'bottom-up' tree as far as possible - but it seems no one else yet from this website.

I could find no pedigree for the Maddern family in the Visitations. The visitation pedigree for the Polkinhorne family shows two marriages of Polkinhorne siblings: Jane marries William Cossen alias Maddern and Roger marries Grace daughter of John Cossen alias Maddern. But these are female line descents only, and furthermore it does not show the preceding Maddern pedigree. While it would seem probable from the shared alias surname that William and John are related, the pedigree doesn't say how.

The Muster records are very useful but they do not give ages or relationships owing to the kind of record that they are. Have you looked at the 1522 military survey and the subsidies in the following decades? These were published many years ago by TL Stoate. They won't show relationships either, but they will certainly give you some indication as to the distribution of the surname in the 16th century.

Trencrom