|
Post by spikeharwood on Jul 9, 2014 0:59:35 GMT -5
First query, be gentle. Richard Nicholls m Amelia Skimfield (sp) 1818 at St Agnes. I've found their first three children on IGI, Emma 1819, William 1821 and Jenifer Skenfield 1825. (I assume that Jenifer's middle name should be the same as her mother's maiden name.) I then found the next four children christened at the Wesleyan Church in Redruth, one on 7 March 1837 and the rest two weeks later. These were Amelia b 1826, Eliza b 1829, Thomas b 1831 and Richard b 1833. I had seen up to ten children mentioned in dispatches but I've ruled out John Cock Nicholls as the middle name doesnt fit and Jane b 1827ish who is probably Jenifer. The eighth is Louisa Ann who seems to have been born about 1836 in Blackwater.
So my question is where do I look for her baptism? Did I read that some Wesleyan records are missing?
Any help or comments appreciated. Cheers Spike
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 9, 2014 1:33:17 GMT -5
Nicholls at St Agnes .... that has thrown me! I have done a fair bit of work on Nicholls families further West but St Agnes is a Parish I have not dealt with much at all. Nevertheless I don't recall ever hearing that Angels fear to tread in St Agnes sooooo ............. After reading your post the first thing I decided to look at was the 1851 Census and that is where I nearly had my first 'fit'! Fortunately I elected to search for the family using 'Amelia' as it is a far less common name than Richard. But when I found the entry on Ancestry I found that they had transcribed both father and namesake son as RUBARD!!! But I have found them and can proceed from there. Before moving on I will comment on the names as pointed out in this quote. The marriage record actually shows Amelia's surname as SKINFILL (almost the Aussie SKIN FULL! ). You show her name as SKIMFIELD while the baptism record for daughter Jenifer shows it as SKENFIELD. I should point out that whatever appears in the register is generally the 'interpretation' of the person entering the information based on what they hear when the name is spoken. The Cornish accent varies from place to place and generally speaking becomes broader as you travel further West and that can make it very difficult for outsiders. The marriage record indicates that neither Richard Nicholls nor Amelia could write their own names so the Vicar/Clerk merely wrote the name how it sounded to him at the time. I hope to have an answer or two for you soon but the first thing I need to begin entering what I have found so far into my database. CT
|
|
|
Post by spikeharwood on Jul 9, 2014 2:02:44 GMT -5
Rhubarb Rubard! Emma married Richard Nettel in 1846 and they immigrated to Sth Aust in June 1859 on the James Jardine. That's their dau Catherine with the grandparents in C51.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 9, 2014 2:31:12 GMT -5
RE: Amelia's surname - I have been able to find just one example of the surname SKINFILL/SKENFIELD etc. in the marriage records where an actual signiature was involved and that was in 1827 at Kenwyn where the groom signed his name as SKINFILL. Other examples of the name in the registers include Skinfell, Skinfield, Skenfield, Skimfield.
Based on this I would be inclined to use the variation SKINFILL given we have an actual signiature.
I am still working on the baptisms of Richard and Amelia's children.
CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 9, 2014 4:56:04 GMT -5
There are a number of reasons to explain why Louisa's baptism cannot be found including the possibility that the parents simply forgot to baptise her! She was age 4 in the 1841 Census and 14 in 1851 so she had to have been born 1836 or 1837. I can find no birth registration for her in FreeBMD suggesting she was born before July 1837 although it is also possible that the entry is missing from the Index.
What is quite interesting is that four children were baptised in March 1837 at which time the youngest of those children was about 3-1/2 years old. Louisa was not one of these children indicating she may have been born between March and the end of June 1837 but if her birth was imminent then it seems strange the baptisms were not delayed for a short time so that she might be included.
Also interesting is that the first three children were baptised in the Established Church and the next four in the Wesleyan Chapels. If it did occur then Louisa's baptism might have been CofE or Wesleyan or perhaps maybe even one of the other non-conformist denominations of the time. It is not unusual to find a family baptising some children CofE, some Wesleyan, some Primitive Methodist or Bible Christian or even to have the baptisms jumping from one denomination to another and back again.
Yes, it is possible there may be some Wesleyan records missing. I remember reading about one minister whose registers were lost at sea with him although I cannot remember the exact time or denomination. There are also many gaps in the Parish Registers including one Parish (St Issey I think) where for a period of years the Vicar simply neglected to record any baptisms at all!
Noting that four children aged from 6 to 3 were baptised together in 1837 there is still another possibility. Louisa was born either 1836 or, more likely, early 1837 at St Agnes according to the Census records but by the time of the 1841 Census the family was living at Illogan. We don't know just when the family moved to Illogan but if it had been decided for some reason to delay her baptism then it is likely Illogan is where it would have been performed. And if the baptism did take place at Illogan and it was after 1840 then it may be recorded in the Illogan Parish Register. Unfortunately baptism records for Illogan are not openly available after 1840 and as far as I know can only be viewed at the Cornwall Record Office. Records up to and including 1840 have been transcribed in Index form and are available from the Cornwall Family History Society.
CT
|
|
|
Post by spikeharwood on Jul 9, 2014 8:38:22 GMT -5
Thank you CT. I can live with all that. At least there is nothing to suggest that Emma, Eliza and Louisa are not sisters. I've traced these girls forward. Emma married a Richard Nettle and immigrated to Australia. Louisa married John Sweet and immigrated to Aust also. Eliza immigrated to Australia and became the second wife of my ggg grandfather Hannibal Julian (on my mother's mother's side). Coincidentally, I've just renewed the lease on my mother's paternal grandfather's grave. The leaseholder was his second wife and I had to track down the oldest living relative (they had no children) to have the lease transferred to me. I located her and decided to do a family tree for when I met her. That's when I discovered that she was Emma's gg granddaughter. So there we were talking on the phone when we had a connection to two women dating back almost 200 years! And as for Louisa, well I can trace her via a couple of marriages to my sister's husband's family. Who would have thought! Anyways, thanks again. Next stop, the Davey family in Redruth. Cheers Spike
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 10, 2014 0:53:44 GMT -5
Spike - there is certainly nothing at the moment to suggest that Louisa was not a sister to the other girls. I did consider the possibility but in the end we only have the two Census records which say she was the youngest daughter of Richard and Amelia. The only other thought is that Louisa might have been a grandaughter but that would mean she would have to have been an illegitimate daughter of Emma who would have been about 17 or 18 at the birth. But in the end I have found no birth or baptism record for Louisa to confirm her parentage one way or another. (And even if I had then it may not help - I have one Birth Certificate in my possession which confused matters for a long time. Turns out the child was illegitimate and the parents named were actually the grandparents!)
Re: Davey family of Redruth - I did some work a couple of years back on a Davey/Davis family of Redruth/Illogan. I don't know if it is part of the same family but let me know if I might be able to help.
CT
|
|
|
Post by spikeharwood on Jul 10, 2014 3:44:19 GMT -5
Ah, we have a copy of Louisa's marriage certificate on Ancestry...which I may have seen before. Father's name is stated as Richard Nicholls. Would she have had to have been baptised before she got married in the church? There is a line that says ...married according to the rites of the Established Church ____________ by me. The words "after Ba......" were inserted in the space. Doesnt look like Baptism but if it is it suggests that she was baptised at the same time?? trees.ancestry.com/tree/14740104/photo/FEbCSzAFgRIRp6BGPPQUuWJB1IzhxEwToJhsYesI05VIDLPLbqSpdWNQMo6cIdp7
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 10, 2014 8:16:19 GMT -5
A very good pick up and a handy document! And I now have a copy for my own perusal.
I'm not sure if it was necessary but I suspect more than a few did get married without being baptised. And I have seen examples of a person being baptised soon before being married. I have certainly never seen any marriage record where a baptism is also noted.
It is certainly possible Louisa was baptised many years after birth and adult baptisms were not uncommon. But the words you the Marriage Certificate you are querying are nothing to do with anything but the marriage and in fact they are after Banns.
CT
|
|