|
|
Post by allan1962 on Jan 17, 2015 6:57:23 GMT -5
Thomas Casley was baptised on 20 Feb 1814, the son of Richard Casley & Mary, residence Bojewyan, father's profession miner.
It has been suggested that, being unable to find a marriage for Richard & Mary, the mother's name in the baptism register should be Margaret, & that the marriage is that on 30 May 1789 of Richard Casley & Margaret Warren.
Look forward to receiving comments,
Allan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 19, 2015 0:20:04 GMT -5
Allan - I am afraid you have been another victim of a transcription error! The entry in the St Just Parish register reads that 'Richard Castley and Margt. Warren' were married. Margaret was unable to sign her name but she made her mark beside the words 'The mark of Margt. Warren'.
You can find the image showing this marriage on FamilySearch in the St Just records 'St Just Marriages 1754-1813' and it should be image number 83.
CT
|
|
|
|
Post by allan1962 on Jan 20, 2015 18:20:01 GMT -5
I only posted this because a third party is arguing that Thomas Casley 1814 is the son of Richard Casley & Margaret Warren.
There is no dispute re the marriage of Richard & Margaret on 30 May 1789 - Image 82 in the St Just Register.
It is the baptism register that is being disputed, ie mother Mary should read mother Margaret.
Personally, I don't agree with the third party for several reasons.
The purpose of my post was to seek other opionions re the missing marriage of Richard Casley & Mary Unknown, the parents of Thomas baptised 20 Feb 1814.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 20, 2015 20:51:21 GMT -5
Allan - I have looked at this from several directions and my opinion is that the parents of Thomas Casley 1814 are almost certainly Richard Casley and Margaret Warren. My reasoning is that there appears to be no other possible explanation except for the possibility Thomas may have been the illegitimate son of on of the elder daughters - perhaps Mary.
1. The earliest marriage I can find for a Richard Casley to someone named Mary is not until 1825 at Madron
2. Prior to 1814 the next baptism for a Thomas son of Richard Casley is the son of Richard and Margaret baptized at St Just in 1797
3. Thomas son of Richard Casley was buried at St Just 30th August 1810 - i.e. the child baptized in 1797
So with no possible marriage and first son Thomas dying in 1810 the probability is that Thomas of 1814 must be the son of Richard and Margaret with the mother's name entered incorrectly.
There is one other slim possibility and that is that the father's name was incorrectly entered in the register when Thomas was baptized. In that scenario the other possible marriages would be:-
George Casley m. Mary Williams 1792 St Just - (son Thomas bp. 1797 St Just)
Christopher Casley m. Mary Toman 1793 St Just
Thomas Casley m. Mary Hattam 1803 St Just
Gabriel Casley m. Mary Casley 1803 St Just
So the options are:-
1. Thomas is certainly son of Richard and Margaret
2. Thomas is the illegitimate son of Richard's daughter Mary
3. Thomas is the son of either Christopher and Mary, Thomas and Mary or Gabriel and Mary with the father's name incorrectly recorded.
In my opinion the third option is by far the least likely.
CT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 21, 2015 0:13:17 GMT -5
Allan - I have thought some more about this problem and checked a few more options and possibilities. The upshot of all this is that I now tend to agree with you that Thomas Casley may not have been the son of Richard Casley!  Richard Casley of Peednapons age 40 was buried at St Just 13th February 1813Thomas son of Richard and Mary Casley of Bojewian St Just, miner was baptized 20th February 1814 at St Just It is certainly possible that the baptism of Thomas was delayed and that would not be unusual but there are two points worth noting:- 1. There is a gap of 7 years between the baptism of the previous child (i.e. William 1807) and that of Thomas in 1814 2. In the 1851 Census Thonas gave his age as 36 which indicates, if accurate, a birth about 1814 or 1815 I will check further. CT |
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 21, 2015 1:51:03 GMT -5
Allan - I have done some more checking and I maintain that I agree that Thomas may not have been the son of Richard Casley. But I do think that if he was not son of Richard then he was most likely an illegitimate son of Richard's daughter Mary. I said in my previous that the age Thomas gave at the 1851 Census was 36 indicating he was born about 1814 or 1815 but I just looked at 1861 and he says he was age 47 which indicates a birth in 1813 or 1814. Unfortunately it complicates further because in 1871 he said he was age 59 which now gives us a birth around 1811 or 1812!  The list of his children supports the likelihood he was either son of Richard and Margaret or the illegitimate son of Mary. Perhaps the most interesting is that his eldest child was a son named Richard followed by son Thomas. The first daughter was Elizabeth which suggests perhaps something to do with his sister. The second daughter was Frances after Frances Gendall and then came daughter Margaret with Mary after her. Frances Gendall's parents were also Richard and Margaret which adds another small complication.  And there is just one more possibility I did not think of earlier - Thomas may have been a posthumous child to Richard Casley. So the question is still not answered except that Thomas was either son of Richard and Margaret or the illegitimate son of their daughter Mary. CT |
|
|
|
Post by allan1962 on Jan 21, 2015 6:42:58 GMT -5
CT,
Many thanks for your comments. The following statements are copies from previous correspondence between myself & the third party. Perhaps I should have posted these in my original post.
The reasons which I gave to the third party for my opinion are:-
"In my tree I have 12 children born to Richard Casley & Margaret Warren, namely:-
Margaret 1789, Richard 1791, Mary 1792, Mary 1793, Phillis, 1795, Thomas 1797, Elizabeth 1799, Jane 1800, Ralph 1802, Gabriel 1803, Marria 1805, William 1806.
Their baptisms show parents as Richard or Rich’d & Margaret or Margt.
There is either 1 or 2 years between these births.
I find it difficult to accept that Thomas, born 8 years after William & when Margaret was 45, baptised 20 Feb 1814 the son of Richard & Mary, is the son of Richard & Margaret Warren.
Margaret Casley nee Warren died aged 80 & was buried on 25 Aug 1849 at St Just, residence Trewellard.
Can’t find a burial for Richard Casley 1762. Found one in St Just in 1813 but aged 40 so born 1773; not our Richard."
The third party's reasons for believing Thomas 1814 to be the son of Richard Casley & Margaret Warren are:-
"a. Firstly question the baptism of Thomas: Yes it states Richard & Mary as his parents, although we believe it should read Margaret. Note the two previous baptisms performed on the same day, that of John & Jane Toman who had parents listed as Richard & Mary. Therefore question the possibility did the minister at the time Nicholas Tresidder, make an error when entering his parents’ names, as he had already entered the same names twice already. Worth noting too that Richard’s mother was Mary Warren prior to marrying Thomas 1715 . With nothing other to go one – could this be the missing baptism registration?
b. Richard 1762 had a another son named Ralph 1802 who married Mary Matthews in 1825. Children: Margaret 1826 Mary 1828 Richard 831 William 1832 Jane 1835 Thomas 1840. Some of these names appear throughout future generations,. e.g. Margaret 1826 married Richard Bulger, their daughter Margaret married Isaac Newton, she attended the funeral of Thomas & Frances daughter Frances Allen in 1922 mentioned as cousin to Frances, further strengthens the theory that Ralph was a brother to Thomas 1814.
c. It has been suggested that Thomas parents where Richard Casley & Elizabeth Thomas. The 1841 census shows them living at Chypraze. In the 1851 census is shows Elizabeth as a widow still living in Chyprase.
d. In the 1851 census Richard Casley age 16 of Madron who is at the home on the census night, and down as her nephew, is the same Richard age 16 who is the son of Thomas 1814. Therefore if Elizabeth is Richards’ aunt, she can’t be Thomas’ mother. She be would Thomas’ sister in law, which ties in with our research as we have Richard Casley 1791 as her husband and Thomas’s brother.
e. Furthermore 1861 census Elizabeth is living at Bowewyan with her own son Richard who is 44, where our Thomas’s brother Richard would be much older age 170 or thereabouts.
f. A reason for Richard age 16 appearing twice on the 1851 census could be Thomas & Frances completed their census form prematurely, then Richard stays at his aunt’s house two door away on the actual night.
g. Thomas died in 28. 8. 1893: Death Announcement in THE CORNISHMAN - Frances died 1905. We have a photograph of their headstone, they are buried at Pendeen Church, a short drive from St Just."
Allan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 21, 2015 13:01:45 GMT -5
Allan - seems I messed at least one thing up in my post!  I certainly messed up my maths with the 1813 burial of Richard Casley. You are quite right - at age 40 in 1813 he would have been born 1772 or 1773 and not 1762 so cannot be the husband of Margaret. NO - I checked on this one. In 1841 she was with her daughter Elizabeth Grose who was baptized at St Just in 1811 to THOMAS and Margaret Casley. This Margaret is Margaret HOCKIN (bp. 9th December 1770 to John and Jane) who married Thomas Casley 12th January 1794 at St Just. I don't have a burial for Margaret wife of Richard and now, courtesy of my error, I don't have a burial for Richard either. Now then, as for some of the information from your third party here are a few comments. 1. the reference to 'cousins' can be quite misleading. Often a 'cousin' did not mean a cousin as we know it today. A cousin could be a neice/nephew, a first cousin, a second cousin or, sometimes, even a step-sibling so interpreting exact relationships can be a little tricky. 2. the Elizabeth Thomas referred to as wife of Richard Casley would be the daughter-in-law of Richard and Margaret (nee Warren) Casley. She names the Richard Casley age 16 who is with her in the 1851 Census as 'nephew' which certainly, as we know it today, infers that his father Thomas would be Elizabeth's brother-in-law. IF Thomas was the son of Richard and Margaret then that would certainly be so but I have suggested the possibility that Thomas may have been an illegitimate son of Mary Casley. In that case Elizabeth would be the 'great-aunt' to young Richard Casley so technically he was still her nephew. 3. I take the point about the Vicar recording names in error and repeating names already entered. I have seen this on numerous occasions. 4. Filling out Census Forms - once again I doubt it was quite the same back in 1851 as it is today. These days we receive a Census form and are given a certain amount of time to fill it in and return it but back in the 19th Century my understanding is that the Enumerator travelled from household to household and filled out forms as he went. Obviously an enumerator would find it difficult to process his whole area in one night so it would be possible for someone to be enumerated twice. They might be at home on night one when the enumerator called and on night two might be at a relatives home when the enumerator called. And then there is always the possibility that a person might give the enumerator details of all persons that 'should' be at home that night when in fact one or more of those people might be elsewhere. Whichever way you look at this problem there are going to be different opinions but, like you, I question that large gap between 1807 when William was baptized and 1814 when Thomas was baptized. The one piece of information that might help us would be a burial record for Margaret Casley so long as it told us how old she was when she died. At the moment I don't have a baptism for her but if she were born before 1766 then it would be almost impossible for her to have been the mother of Thomas Casley. After all, if born in 1766 she would be 48 in 1814 and that is the maximum age I allow for women to have children back then. Perhaps once have I seen a child born to a woman who would have been 49 but age 48 is quite common. At the moment I am still leaning towards Thomas being the illegitimate son of Mary Casley but it also cannot be proved at the moment. CT |
|
|
|
Post by allan1962 on Jan 22, 2015 15:30:54 GMT -5
CT, Have checked my tree & I also already have Margaret Casley nee Hockin buried on 25 Aug 1949. The 1841 census shows her residence with son-in-law John Grose to be in Trewellard, ie where she was buried from. Back to square one with Margaret Casley nee Warren  . Allan. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 23, 2015 8:26:34 GMT -5
Both Richard and Margaret seem to disappear so it might be worth rechecking data on all their children to see if perhaps one or more found their way to other parts of England or Wales. If that were the case then perhaps Richard and Margaret went that way as well.
CT
|
|
I certainly messed up my maths with the 1813 burial of Richard Casley. You are quite right - at age 40 in 1813 he would have been born 1772 or 1773 and not 1762 so cannot be the husband of Margaret.
.