|
Post by gandolf on Dec 12, 2015 16:22:28 GMT -5
I do agree that Charles Ellis was based in West Penwith (and may even have been born and bred there).
My rambling was based on nothing more than the fact that he appeared to be in the middle rungs of society, yet despite being around at the time did not get documented by the 1620 Visitations. Somewhat curious.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Dec 12, 2015 23:29:38 GMT -5
Gandolf - just what 1620 Visitations are you quoting from? I have a copy of Vivian's Visitations comprising 1530, 1573 and 1620 and I have also checked the online edition held by UKGA and the ONLY mention of Ellis/Ellys that I can find is on page 300 of my downloaded copy which gives details of the incorporation of the Town of Penzance and notes that Paskow Ellys was on of the first Aldermen. IN other words - I can find no pedigree anywhere of any Ellis/Ellys family! CT
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Dec 13, 2015 6:22:06 GMT -5
CT I agree - there is no pedigree of any Ellis (or variants) family in any of the Cornish or Devon Visitations, regardless of date of visitation.
I thought that is exactly what I had said in my previous note, but perhaps I wasn't clear earlier.
The part that is I find somewhat curious is the fact that given Charles Ellis was associated with several landed gentry families (albeit lower level), his family - despite seeming to be of some status - apparently avoided or were ignored by the Heralds. Perhaps the family were "johnny-come-lately" and did not survive long enough to appear on the Herald's "radar".
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Dec 13, 2015 7:04:09 GMT -5
Ah - obviously I have not read your posts thoroughly or I have misunderstood. My apologies.
As for the family not being represented in the Visitations - perhaps Charles (or his forebears) were unable to come up with seven prior generations!!
CT
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Dec 13, 2015 7:23:18 GMT -5
Gandolf - just what 1620 Visitations are you quoting from? I have a copy of Vivian's Visitations comprising 1530, 1573 and 1620 and I have also checked the online edition held by UKGA and the ONLY mention of Ellis/Ellys that I can find is on page 300 of my downloaded copy which gives details of the incorporation of the Town of Penzance and notes that Paskow Ellys was on of the first Aldermen. IN other words - I can find no pedigree anywhere of any Ellis/Ellys family! Just re-reading your post and the mention of Paskow Ellys caught my eye. Went back and checked my copy of the 1620 Visitation (PDF copy) and can see the reference you mention on the page actually numbered (in my copy any) as #283. The reason for checking was that I was curious to see whether the Paskow Ellys mentioned was the son of Charles (and brother to Mary, wife of John Lanyon). However I see from the reference that Penzance was granted its Charter of Incorporation in 1614 by James VI & I, with the published listing of Mayor, various Aldermen, etc being for the year of 1620 during the Herald's Visitation to the town. I also came across Peter Poole's 1974 book "The history of the town and borough of Penzance" which mentions a couple of times within it some references that indicate that "Pascoe Ellis" was Mayor of Penzance around 1622 or 1623. So as Paskow, son of Charles was not even born yet (as he seems to be from Charles' third marriage to Maria Tredenham and born during the 1620s) or is at most a child, to have someone old enough to be an Alderman and Mayor we are clearly dealing with another Paskow Ellys. On name alone Paskow Ellys, one of those first Aldermen of Penzance in 1620, is undoubtedly related to Paskow Ellis, son of Charles. Occam's Razor would suggest that in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the most likely relationship would be as grandfather - that is Paskow Ellys the Alderman as the father of Charles Ellis (the much married) and therefore grandfather to the younger Paskow Ellis. Paskow Ellis, the Alderman and Mayor, would seem to be the same person as the Paskoe Elis who is buried at Madron in 1639. What looks like his widow (certainly a widow anyway!) is Elizabeth Ellis, widow, buried at Madron in 1641 Given the Ellis family were apparently freemen in Penzance (Paskow Snr at least and likely Charles his presumed son), and sufficiently up the social stratum for Charles to be marrying women from minor landed gentry families, and Charles' presumed father to be both Alderman and Mayor of Penzance, it still surprises me somewhat that the Ellis family managed to avoid "capture" by the Heralds - especially as a Paskow Ellys was an Alderman at the time of 1620 Visitation! As an interesting aside, while double checking the references on Paskow Ellis/Ellys, I found a reference that seems to confirm a reasonably close relationship between the Borlase and Ellis families. In the book "Descent, Name and Arms of Borlase of Borlase in the County of Cornwall", originally published 1888 on pages 145-146, there are references to show that when John Borlase (son of John Borlase and Cheston Pawley, and therefore brother to Mary Borlase who married John Lanyon) made his will, one of the tenements he disposed was: To his son Richard Borlase he leaves his tenement in Cellan called Codna Gooth, "now in the possession of Paskow Ellis, in the parish of St. Crett", which he purchased of Robert Baynard of the same parish.
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Dec 13, 2015 7:27:12 GMT -5
I assume that the above is a bit tongue in cheek? I'm not sure the requirement really to have seven generations of ancestors able to be named at the visitation date, since although I have not gone back and checked, I am fairly sure I have seen a number of pedigrees that would fail to meet that criteria.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Dec 13, 2015 13:47:09 GMT -5
Yes it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. But a seven-generation pedigree is stuck in my mind as having been a requirement for something. I thought maybe for the granting of a Coat of Arms but some brief googling would seem to suggest that was not right. CT
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Dec 13, 2015 14:52:19 GMT -5
I was thinking some more about the relationship of the various early Ellis men I had proposed... After all Charles married the first time in 1607, suggesting he was born no later than around 1592 and more likely in the 1580's.
This would mean that if my theory is correct, then his presumed father Paskow Ellys must have been born by no later than around 1560. My initial reaction was that this meant he would then be too old to be the Paskow buried in 1639, but on thinking about it some more and doing the maths, it is actually possible. These dates would suggest that Paskow must have been around eighty (or more) years of age at burial - assuming he is the father of Charles.
There is some indirect evidence to support this advanced age, since Charles Ellis clearly lived until at least his late sixties and probably well into his seventies (died in 1660, but was born most likely before 1590).
However, given the requirement for such advanced age for the earlier Paskow Ellys, it does raise the question of whether he was the father of Charles, or perhaps of the same generation and therefore a brother.
|
|
|
Post by lipkatatar on Dec 13, 2015 15:00:09 GMT -5
I have been following with interest and some incredulity the recent speculation regarding the Lanyon family. I believe that we can say with some certainty that John Lanyon, son of Wiliam Lanyon would not have been the husband of Mary Ellis, and that the most likely husband of Mary would have been John Lanyon, the son of Richard Lanyon and Jane de la More.
We are being asked to believe that John, son of William Lanyon only married in his forties and then fathered children at regular intervals into his mid sixties. John, son of Richard Lanyon, born in 1610, is much more age appropriate.
We are being asked to believe that the son of a tin miner who left most of his children a few animals and a small amount of money was able to leave an estate worth thousands of pounds and have his children recognised by the titles of Mr. and Mrs. John, son of Richard Lanyon was the nominal head of the Lanyon family at a time when their wealth and social standing were at their highest. His father, grandfather, great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather had all been recognised as esquires and had made advantageous marriages that had increased their wealth and social status to the point where they were marrying into families with known royal ancestry (Myliton, Trewen). If any John Lanyon could leave such large legacies to his children and have them acknowledged as Mr. and Mrs. I believe that it could only have been John, son of Richard Lanyon.
Regarding the inclusion of families in the Visitations- The purpose of the Visitations was to ensure that armigerous status (the right to a coat of arms) was only being claimed by those families that were entitled to such status by hereditary right or grant. It would not have mattered whether the grant of arms had been one generation or ten generations ago. By the seventeenth century it appears that normal practice was for those claiming this status only to have to prove their direct descent back a few generations to ancestors who had been recognized as being armigerous in previous Visitations.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Dec 13, 2015 23:28:04 GMT -5
Thankyou Lipkatatar - I have not had a great deal of input into these families but I have never been comfortable with the seemingly common view that John Lanyon, husband of Mary Ellis, would have been the son of William. At first this was largely due to the fact that no one had provided anything that resembled evidence but in recent times, after having read the Will of widow Mary Lanyon (nee Ellis) I have taken particular notice of the fact that there has never been any mention of her brother-in-law William Lanyon of Illogan. And he is also recorded as 'Gent.' in the few records I have seen! As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts - a little work on the family of William might well provide a family for John! The Illogan baptism register appears to be sparse with records from 1539 to 1617 and then a large gap to 1665 where two sides of one leaf survive. Thereafter is another gap to 1687 from whence that first volume is complete to 1699. Marriage survive reasonably intact from 1601 to 1699 and burials appear reasonably intact, albeit with page damage and some small gaps, from about 1540 to 1699. From these I have found a few entries of possible interest:- William Lanyon and Grace his wife were married 24th December 1636 Grace Lanyon was buried 6th February 1662 (no indication of whether this might have been the wife of William) Mr William Lanyon was buried 27th February 1687 <==================== John Lanyon and Prudence Brown were maryed 1663 (page damaged but entry is immediate before another dated October 24th) Grace daughter of John Lenine was baptised 10th March 1665 (the name suggests a possible link to William and Grace) Prudence ye wife of John Lenyne was buried 3rd March 1667 CT
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Dec 14, 2015 6:40:08 GMT -5
Hi Lipkatatar Like you I was not entirely comfortable with where my thoughts were leading, hence my comment in one of the postings regarding towers built of feathers. Basically I was just working through the data as it seemed to be presenting and probably to some extent got distracted by the William Lanyon and his will. Because of that preoccupation, while I was starting to feel my way toward the correct corner of the family, I was as you say a generation out (and also sidetracked into William Lanyons). And although CT did mention William Lanyon of Illogan, I could not see any obvious place to put him in the family as it was "officially" documented. Nor did I have much success finding any records that seemed to add anything useful to determining who he was. Your comments caused me to go back and look again and I now agree that you are correct about your placement of John Lanyon, husband of Nann/Ann Jopp and Mary Ellis as the son of Richard Lanyon and Jane De La More. Although early on I had looked in passing at this John Lanyon, son of Richard Lanyon and Jane De La More, it was more in relation to his brother Francis (when thinking about the Sancreed marriage of Francis Lanyon and Ales Trewren and the others around the same time at Sancreed). I had discounted Richard & Jane's son John originally because at the time I was looking for a John Lanyon to marry off to Mary Ellis and, per Vivian, Richard's son was married to an unidentified Ann. Further, because of the will of Mary (Ellis) Lanyon I was also looking for a John Laynon with a brother William and, again per Vivian, Richard Lanyon and Jane De La More were not recorded with a son William. Both points caused me at the time to discount this John Lanyon. Yet for some reason, even following the research indicating the higher status of John's children when they married, and more importantly even after finding that Mary Ellis's husband had been previously married to Nann/Ann Jopp, I failed to connect the dots and see that Nann Jopp was likely the same person as the unidentified Ann recorded by Vivian. (getting stupidly carried away with the theory I was evolving, I know!) So the outcome of this is that having now correctly placed Mary (Ellis) Lanyon's husband, then from her will wherein she mentions her brother-in-law William Lanyon of Illogan, it seems we have identified a previously unknown son William for Richard Lanyon and Jane De La More.
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Dec 14, 2015 7:11:40 GMT -5
One other thought on the "newly discovered" brother for John Lanyon, namely William Lanyon, Gent of Illogan.
William Lanyon of Illogan's 1687 will mentions his "kinsman" John Lanyon of St. Ives. This is almost certainly his nephew.
Although John Lanyon (son of John Lanyon and Mary Ellis) and wife Mary Borlase had most of their family at Morvah, there are indications that they had moved to St. Ives no later than the mid 1680's (just in time for William's will).
For a start, although I cannot yet identify a baptism for her, there is a burial for an Elizabeth Lanyon, daughter of John Lanyon Gent at St. Ives in 1687. By itself inconclusive, but taken in combination with the following:
Mary Lanyon, wife of Mr. John Lanyon is buried at St. Ives 17 Oct 1704 (apparently aged around 66) Mr John Lanyon (Snr) is buried at St. Ives 12 Jun 1720. (apparently aged about 78)
This suggests John & Mary (Borlase) Lanyon and family were associating more with St. Ives than with Morvah by the late 1680's
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Dec 14, 2015 13:02:24 GMT -5
Gandolf - I need to query this quote. Vivian is dealing with the Visitation of 1620 and in my copy the pedigree shows that John, eldest son of Richard Lanyon and Jane Da. of Rich Mooringe al's De la More is age 10 and with no sign of a wife. Perhaps you are getting confused with his father's generation where Richard's sister Anne is recorded as 'ux Jo. Toinken of Penzance'. And another point - even if Vivian did have a wife for John then the earliest John Lanyon with a wife named Ann near that time would be the oft-forgotten Morvah marriage between John Lanyon and Anne Edwards in 1625 would it not? And even then it is five years after the 1620 Visitation! AND the marriage to Nann Jop was yet another 11 years after that!! I also have to say that I am not comfortable with these latest thoughts of linking John Lanyon to Richard Lanyon. After all John Lanyon and Mary Ellis did have a rather large family - 14 children in fact - of whom 8 were sons named John, Hugh, William, Tobias, Francis, Charles, Philip and Thomas. With that many sons I would have thought Richard might get a mention somewhere ................... if, that is, John was the son of a Richard Lanyon! Finally - we now have evidence that William Lanyon of Illogan was a brother to John Lanyon, husband of Mary Ellis. We also know that William Lanyon had a kinsman (presumably nephew) John Lanyon at St Ives with this John logically being son of John and Mary above. Now John Lanyon was first married in October 1636 indicating he was probably born at least a couple of years before 1620. Interestingly, William Lanyon was married at Illogan in December of the same year (i.e. 1636) so by the same reasoning he also must have been born at least a couple of years prior to 1620. Question - if John Lanyon was the son of Richard and Jane and was age 10 in the Visitation pedigree then why should William not be mentioned when he was probably of a similar age as John? And if I am reading it correctly then it was Richard Lanyon himself who submitted the updated pedigree! But if we want to look further at the Visitation Pedigree then why not consider Richard's younger brother John as a possible parent to John of Morvah and his brother William if Illogan? CT
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Dec 14, 2015 15:03:41 GMT -5
My comment was based on the following page: Vivian's Visitations of Cornwall, page 282 where Vivian shows the young John as atat. 10 (i.e. 10 years of age at the 1620 Visitation), but also with a spouse Ann. Vivian was mixing the Visitations with data from the parish registers, in this case from the Sancreed registers. Hmm. I did overlook these points last night when considering Lipkatatar's redirection. The lack of a son of Richard named William does seem to discount the possibility of Richard's son John being the John Lanyon in question. However, we cannot fully eliminate the possibility that William was born either 1620 after the Herald's visit or perhaps 1621 and had then married young (age 15-16) - albeit I admit this is not a high probability scenario. The lack of a son Richard does also raise questions as you say. Richard's younger brother John could be a candidate for the father of John Lanyon (husband of Nann Jopp & Mary Ellis). However, I cannot currently turn up a potential marriage for him, nor any children. There is a set of children at Breage that at first glance "could" be those of Richard's younger brother John: 24-Aug 1600 Breage William LANYNE son of John abt May 1605 Breage Margareta LANYNE dau of Johis 4-Jul 1607 Breage Jana LANYNE dau of Johis 28-Jan 1609 Breage Franciscus LANYNE son of Johannis 18-Jul 1613 Breage Thomas LANYNE son of Johannis 6-Mar 1615 Breage Philippus LANYNE son of Johannis 21-Jun 1618 Breage Nicholaus LANYON son of Johis 9-Jul 1620 Breage Jana LANYON dau of Johis & Janae 11-Jun 1626 Breage Clemens LANYON son of Johis & Annae The problem here is that they start only 12 years after the baptism of Richard's younger brother John in 1588, and also don't include a son John, so clearly cannot be the family of interest. I suspect at the moment that they may be the children of a currently unidentified son John for the couple John Lanyon and Phillipa Millaton (names consistent as are dates).
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Dec 15, 2015 6:31:09 GMT -5
Seems I have been caught out again by the two printed versions of Vivian!!! My copy does not have the additional information that is included in the UKGA online version. Even so, I am still not comfortable that Richard Lanyon might be the father of John (Mary Ellis) and William (Illogan). Vivian may have made 'a link without thought' with the 1636 marriage to Nann Jop but if he had some basis for making that link then it seems he may also have found something to indicate further children, if there were any, for Richard. (Just speculating! ) As for the younger brother of Richard - there is a marriage for a John Lanyon to Margaret daughter of Sampson John Richards at Madron in 1578 but I suspect that might be just a little early and perhaps a generation before. I certainly don't dispute that Richard 'may' have had children after 1620 but I would then find it very difficult to believe that William would have been born after that date and then found his way to Illogan to marry at age 16 or, more probably in this scenario, under the age of 16. For what it's worth here are some details I have found for children of Richard:- John son of Richard Lanyon Esqr bp. 13th July 1610 Madron Constance daughter of Richard Lanyon bp. 26th February 1622 Madron (not Esqr. or Gent. so perhaps a different Richard?) Mary daughter of Richard Lanyon bp. 12th January 1627 Madron (as above) They appear to be all between 1600 and 1631. But I have just found a marriage to account for Constance and Mary - Richard Lanyon married Elizabeth his wife 10th August 1617 Madron. So we remain at an impasse! But there is one other thing of note - William Lanyon appears to have had but one son and he was named JOHN! We should also be keeping in mind that there are no records for Sennen and St Levan before 1700 and none for Morvah before about 1650 although there do seem to be BTs for the earlier period at Morvah. CT
|
|