Hello, new to this site

[Cornish Terrier]

And since adult typically meant 21 or over,

I would suggest this might be a somewhat dangerous assumption! And I should think it would be very wise to undertake some further investigation before compiling any sort of pedigree based on this.

Bear in mind that for the purposes of the 1841 Census ages were rounded down to the nearest five for adults ....... and in that case an adult was classed as age 15.

You might also want to take into account the legal age for marriage which has been as low as age 14 for males and age 12 for females in centuries past!

CT

[lipkatatar]

In the introductory essay to the Easter Books, CanonTaylor discussed the question of the age at which children of householders became liable to pay. The custom was that each single person had to pay a penny- but when did a child become a single person? Based a few examples where there was separate evidence of the ages of children named in the Easter Books, Taylor concluded that a child became a person when they reached the "age of discretion", which, he suggested, was the age of Confirmation (based on one example where a daughter is said not to have paid as she had not been Confirmed.)  Prior to 1604, the normal age for Confirmation in the Church of England was 12 or 13.

The sub-groupings of individuals within a locality in the Easter Books should not be taken as a strict division into households, such as we find in later Census returns. In some examples the groupings of individuals within a locality seems to change from year to year. It may be that the John Walden who is grouped with the Cocks occupied a cottage on or adjacent to the Cocks residence, although he may not have been part of their household.

[gandolf]

I would suggest this might be a somewhat dangerous assumption! And I should think it would be very wise to undertake some further investigation before compiling any sort of pedigree based on this.

I agree it can be a dangerous assumption, but in the absence of other records clearly indicting an age, one has to start somewhere and then adjust your thinking based on what records you can identify as relevant.

In this case, my thinking was based in part on the fact that legally (for inheritance purposes, etc) you were an adult at 21 years of age.

While marriage was certainly legal at times at very young ages as you mention CT, in my research into many families in Cornwall suggest that early marriage did not seem to have been a particularly common practice in Cornwall - more the exception. If anything, there seems to have been a slight tendency toward slightly older than average marriage (particularly in the landholding classes).

As to the example of the 1841 census, while it does demonstrate the point about adult at 15, it is also some 250 years later than the time of the St. Just Easter books.

The key question what was the age the minister who recorded the Easter Books considered as being adult. I am not sure we can answer that question reliably given the patchy to non existent early St. Just in Penwith baptismal records

The other question is the reliability of the recorded data, which we have to accept as transcribed (unless with access to original document) or even as recorded in the original document. Such data can be misleading and on occasion even wrong when compared to other records and the challenge is always in establishing the true facts.

The data that lipkatatar provided for the Cock family is an example that shows one clear anomaly to the "normal" practice of 2d payment for widowers and widows.

John Cock's daughter Alson disappears from the family record in 1592 & 1593. She re-appears in 1594 called vid. indicating she had married (probably at Sennen as indicated by the 1596 entry) and was now widowed. Yet Alson was apparently not required to make the "normal" 2d payment as a widow - certainly it does not seem to be recorded that a payment was made.

[lipkatatar]

Regarding Alson Cock.:- It appears to be the custom in the Easter Books that when an individual who had previously been recorded as making payment had died or moved from the parish during the intervening year then they were entered in the Easter Books with no payment recorded and a brief explanation. It seems likely that by 1595 Alson had remarried and therefore was not paying anything as her new husband would be paying at the married man's rate.


Regarding the entries for Glandfelde/Grainfield:- The entry for Bastian William is always immediately followed by "Marg. mater vid." Possibly their relationship would be clarified by the 1583 deed, if it can be found.

[Cornish Terrier]

I agree it can be a dangerous assumption, but in the absence of other records clearly indicting an age, one has to start somewhere and then adjust your thinking based on what records you can identify as relevant.

I understand your point but it can be easy to fall into the trap of letting (in this example) age 21 become your 'norm'. It doesn't hurt to be reminded from time to time about just how ages, perceived, recorded or guessed at, can affect a genealogy. It is also good to be reminded of such things as the Legal ages for marriage over the centuries. In fact I think it was only early in the 20th Century that the legal age of 12 for female marriages was officially amended in England!

It is easy enough to find this information online but one item I just found states that in in England 'In 1929, ........, Parliament raised the age limit to 16 for both sexes in the Ages of Marriage Act. This is still the minimum Age.'
Now that item does not specify what the age was up until 1929 but it does give an example of what I was trying to point out.

Before 1929 Scots Law allowed a girl to marry at 12 and a boy at 14 with no requirement for parental consent!! Apparently such cases were extremely rare but the Law allowed for it.

This from another online source:-

Legal Age for Marriage "Before Hardwickes Marriage act of 1753 there was no legal age of marriage, except during the 1650's when it was sixteen for `men' and fourteen for women'. In 1753 it was fixed at fourteen for men and twelve for women, and remained at those ages until the Age of Marriage Act in 1929, which raised the age to sixteen for both."
from the Family Tree Detective by Colin D. Rogers . Manchester University Press

It is all interesting reading and it does make you stop and think just a little.

But aside from discussing the legalities there is one other reason why I made my comment. And that is to try and help others who might read these posts to understand that getting married at ages 21 to 25 was not the 'norm' as many people seem to think. And people were not always within a couple of years of each other in age when they did marry. Where possible I try to use my posts to help educate people.

CT

[gandolf]

But aside from discussing the legalities there is one other reason why I made my comment. And that is to try and help others who might read these posts to understand that getting married at ages 21 to 25 was not the 'norm' as many people seem to think. And people were not always within a couple of years of each other in age when they did marry. Where possible I try to use my posts to help educate people.

Fully understand CT - its much the same reason I try to explain in reasonably detail as to why I propose connections such as those earlier in this thread.

[gandolf]

In the introductory essay to the Easter Books, CanonTaylor discussed the question of the age at which children of householders became liable to pay. The custom was that each single person had to pay a penny- but when did a child become a single person? Based a few examples where there was separate evidence of the ages of children named in the Easter Books, Taylor concluded that a child became a person when they reached the "age of discretion", which, he suggested, was the age of Confirmation (based on one example where a daughter is said not to have paid as she had not been Confirmed.) Prior to 1604, the normal age for Confirmation in the Church of England was 12 or 13.

The sub-groupings of individuals within a locality in the Easter Books should not be taken as a strict division into households, such as we find in later Census returns. In some examples the groupings of individuals within a locality seems to change from year to year. It may be that the John Walden who is grouped with the Cocks occupied a cottage on or adjacent to the Cocks residence, although he may not have been part of their household.

The observations by Canon Taylor are certainly plausible and don't have a problem accepting that some or many of the single persons paying the fee were possibly in their teens.

However it is also valid to point out (similar to CT's earlier observation) that Canon Taylor is potentially also making assumptions.

While valuable resources in their own right, the research of many 18th & 19th century historians has since been proven to on occasion have errors in them or to draw assumptions since proven suspect or false. The "age of discretion" is a nice vague term with no specific reference, and Taylor's supposition that it was at the age of confirmation would seem from the comment above to be based on a very small sample of surviving records. While Canon Taylor may well be right. it may also be that the his reason for accepting adulthood at a young age and assuming a correlation with Confirmation is that by sheer chance the only surviving baptismal records were for younger people and that these were perhaps the exception rather than the rules, becoming "valid" only as baptismal records for older singles had been lost.

As to John Walden, I agree there is currently no proof either way as to whether he is related to the Cock family. I was simply pointing out potential connections (depending on how you might read the documents). I was perhaps a little hasty to say that he is "probably an (unproven) son-in-law" since that really needs more support to stand.

(that being said, I get the impression that some of the Visitation records were compiled on facts that were of little more substance than this scenario of proximity )

[gandolf]

lipkatatar, finally had a chance to spend the time required to answer your questions on the Granfell/Williams connections and how John Tanner saw them.

Grainfield/Glanfield

Treofall

The sub-groupings within the entry for Treoffall seem to change from year to year. Martin Glanfield is always associated with a Bastian William, his widowed mother, Margaret and their servant, John Veean. From 1587-1593 Martin is single and in 1592 is referred to as a "boardman"- that is someone living and working like a family menber without formal wages. In 1595 Martin is paying the 4d rate of a married man.

John Grainfield appears to be associated with Bastian William in 1588, 1589 (as a boardman), 1590 as a married man, and 1592 as a single man (possibly a transcription eror). In 1591, 1593 and 1595 he does not share the Bastian William grouping but is recorded as paying 4d.

Marg. vid. of Treoffall may well be a Margery rather than a Margaret, which could possibly make her the Margery Trengove referred to in the Visitations who married a Giles/George Grenvile.

John Tanner's opinion on the above point is as follows:
"Let me briefly refer to an error that has appeared in the literature. It has been said that George Grenville (Richard's brother) married Margery Trengove alias Nance. Vivian's Visitations of Cornwall is one that says this, under the Grenville pedigree. In fact Margery Trengove married George's cousin Giles Grenville, as correctly given by Vivian under the Trengove pedigree; I have seen the original Foot of Fine that Vivian quotes, at the PRO Kew, and it confirms this second version. Giles was buried at St Margarets Westminster in 1577. It is almost inconceivable that his widow would settle at St Just after Giles's death, as some have suggested, and this suggestion cannot account for the presence of Bastian Williams.

Note added 2008: That Margaret Trengove married Giles not George is confirmed by another document in The National Archives, reference C 1/1344/49. See the online catalogue."

I came across the quotation below on a Grenfell family history website. If the deed of 1583 referred to below can be verified then it clearly identifies the "Marg. vid." of the Easter Books. as a Glandfelde/Grenfield, either by birth or marriage. In the Visitations of Cornwall, Vivian gives his source for a Trengove-Grenfield marriage as a "fine" (property transaction) from 1&2 Philip and Mary (1554-56). Margery of the 1583 deed could possibly be the Margery who married a Trengove, or possibly her daughter or daughter-in-law. I am not sure of the relation ship between Margery, Bastian William and John Glandfelde - possibly the deed of 1583 would clarify this point. Perhaps John Tanner's research could help us?

John Tanner's opinion on the above point is as follows:
"8. Notes in Western Morning News, 1923, 1925

These two notes discuss the question of whether the St Just Grenfells descend from the eminent Grenville family. No clear conclusion was reached, and they contain some statements that now look dubious (especially the idea that John and Martin were sons of a George Grenfell and a Margaret Trengrove, which can now be ruled out). One relevant statement is, in Note 286 of 1923:

"There is a deed in existence dated May 20th 1583, wherein for £8 John Nance conveyed to Bastian Williams, Margerye Glanfelde and John Glanfelde, of St Uste, his messuage in Trythall, the attorneys being John Bosvargus and Thomas Jose"

So far as I know, no-one recently has been able to locate this deed; it is apparently not at the CRO, the RIC Courtney Library, or the Morrab Library. Its precise wording could be crucial"

The articles he refers to are actually in the "Western Morning News".
1st - Monday 23 February 1925, page 9 - NOTES & QUERIES. ANTIQUARIAN LORE OF THE WEST.  286. - THE GRENFELLS OF ST. JUST
2nd - Monday 02 November 1925, page 6, - NOTES & QUERIES. ANTIQUARIAN LORE OF THE WEST. 467. —THE GRENFELLS, OF ST. JUST. (No. 286)

The quote included by John Tanner in the extract above starting "There is a deed in existance..." is a direct quote from the article in the 23 Feb 1923 newspaper article, which since indirectly implies the deed was part of the Trengove family records in the archives since it was referencing them immediately previously.
The newspaper article goes on to assume (incorrectly) that the Margerye Glanfielde is the wife/widow of George Grenville, although as mentioned above John Tanner explicitly rules this out as incorrect, and further that she is unlikely to be the wife/widow of Giles Grenville either. Both articles contain quite extensive theories as to the origin of the St. Just based Grenfell family, and are broadly in agreement with John Tanner (or rather he with them!) that the Grenfells are an off-shoot of the Grenville family. After a quick read of both articles, the only significant difference is the assumption (incorrect as explained by John Tanner) that Margerey Grenfell is/was a Trengove and married to George/Giles Grenville).

Elsewhere in his thesis John Tanner asserts in relation to the Grenfell family:
"The earliest St Just family

The earliest record is the lease said to have been granted in 1583 to Bastian Williams, Margerye Glanfelde and John Glanfelde.

The original document appears not to have been seen recently, and we only have the 1923 reference to it. It would seem unusual to grant a lease to 3 people, and also for one of them to be female. My feeling is that these people are not the holders of the lease, but the 3 lives on which the lease was granted. If this is so, it seems probable that they are 3 children of one mother but two fathers.

The evidence from the Easter Book tells us that Bastian Williams had a widowed mother 'Marga.' between 1588 and 1595. It does not make it clear whether 'Marga.' was also the mother of the two Glanfeldes named in the lease, but I shall assume this to be so.

The evidence of the Easter Book tells us that Bastian Williams and John Glanfelde, now referred to as Grainfield, were both married in 1589/90. It also tells us that Martin Glanfelde, now Glan(d)field, assumed to be a brother of John, was married in 1593/95. Martin is therefore likely to be the younger brother, and I conclude that the 3 people named in the lease are in descending order of age."

I might add that leases for three lives were actually quite common, and indeed were often structured to try to have the longest possible lives involved - so often two generations, and on occasion three if the first named person happened to be relatively elderly and with surviving children and grandchildren.

[lipkatatar]

Thanks for the detailed reply, Gandolf.

Can you expand on why John Tanner believed that Margaret was the illegitimate daughter of Richard Grenville?

[johntanner]

So far I have managed to avoid getting involved in this topic, as I am very rusty about the details and have little new to contribute. And I am glad to see a healthy discussion developing.

LIPKATATAR To understand my reasons you need to read my original writing, which after about 10 years I still believe to be broadly correct. If you have not seen it, I will gladly email you (and anyone else interested) a copy if I have your email address. I think that you can safely send this to me in a private message, but I have forgotten how to do this.

I too have failed to identify James Otts alias Winter. But the alias suggests to me an illegitimacy or an adoption, and the rather derisory bequest in the will of John Otts alias Watts suggests to me someone who is more of a servant that a son.

Without new evidence, I fear that many of the uncertainties will remain unresolved. Does anyone have any suggestions as to where such evidence might be lurking?

[gandolf]

Further up-thread I posted the following proposed Cock family tree:

                        Sir William Godolphin
                                ? - 1570
                                      |
       _____________________________________________
      |                                             |
  William == Blanch                       John == Elizabeth
Godolphin |  Langdon                   Langdon  |  Godolphin
         | (sister of John)   (bro. of Blanch) |
         |                          1508 - ?   |
                                               |
                             ___________________________
                            |                          |
      Jane Carnesew == Richard Langdon      Margaret Langdon == John Cock
    (see tree above)                          c.1540 - ?      |   c.1540 - 1601
                                                              |
                                       Margaret Williams == Thomas Cock
                                                          |
                                          John Otes == MaryCock


Following further detailed review, I still tend to the opinion that the proposed tree is likely correct without the addition of another generation as proposed by some researchers of another John as a son of John Cock & Margaret Langdon and father of the Thomas Cock who married Margaret Williams.
My reasons include:

• Sir William Godolphin died 1570 and was likely born sometime in the range 1475-1495 (some researchers suggest around 1486), but it may have even been later (eg. 1500 or early 1500's
• Sir William Godolphin's sister Thomasin married William Cavell, whose father Nicholas Cavell was born 1475 (per his own father's inquisition in 1485). So William Cavell cannot have been born before mid to late 1490's and is unlikely to have been significantly younger than Thomasin Godolphin. This tends to suggest that her brother Sir William may have been born towards the latter end of the possible range (say 1485 onwards)
• Sir William Godolphin's wife Margaret Glyn was born about 1489 (age 23 in 1512 when her father John Glyn of Morval died). Sir William is unlikely to have been significantly younger than his wife (ie probably born before 1495) but was probably not significantly older (even a birth of 1486 makes him mid eighties at death).
• The earliest Elizabeth Godolphin could have been born (based on her mother's birth in 1489) is say 1502, but it could have been as late as early 1530's. Given her husband John Langdon was born 1508, it is plausible to consider Elizabeth as perhaps being born in the range 1510-1525.
• John Langdon was born about 1508 (age 40 at his father's death in 1548). He was still living in 1580 when he made a quit-claim with three of his sons to John Rashleigh of Fowey.
• The John Cock whose will is proved in 1601 had (as per the Easter Book) several "adult" children by 1589. Even allowing "adult" to be defined (as discussed above) as being at or over age 13, to have at least three adult children by 1589 suggests John Cock must have married no later than around 1570 and perhaps a quite a bit earlier.
• We know from the Langdon Visitation record that Margaret Langdon (dau of John Langdon & Elizabeth Godolphin) married a John Cox. Depending on when you "allow" Elizabeth Godolphin to be born and in turn married, Margaret cannot be born before say 1530 and not after say 1560.
• By needing to be married by no later than say 1570, we can further refine Margaret Langdon's possible birth range to being between 1530 at the earliest and say 1556 at the latest.

All of which suggests that the ONLY way to fit an extra generation in is if there was a maximum of 15-18 years between every single generation for 4-5 generations. While not chronologically impossible, is is questionable even for that time period, particularly since it would require pretty much every generation to be a first born also to allow an extra generation to fit.

There was one (slight) question in my mind when I found some St. Just in Penwith burial records posted by CT back in 2010 on a thread relating to Pasches Cock - specifically those below:

14th January 1600 John Cock, widower
17th January 1600 Jone Cock, widow
3rd March 1602 Betris d/o Thomas Cock

The cat among the pigones:-

16th April 1612 Jone daughter of Nicholas Cock
4th May 1612 Phillip son of Nicholas Cock

This shows there was at least one other Cock family at St Just prior to 1612 and could cause a dilemma

While I am comfortable that the John Cock widower is the maker of the will proved in 1601, who is Jone? She cannot be the wife of John Cock, since he is called a widower. However, I think I can now explain it satisfactorily.

My belief is that she is almost certainly the widow of Nicholas Cock, brother of Thomas Cock (both sons of the John Cock who died 1600, will proved 1601). The transcript of John Cock's will that I have seen includes a bequest to Nicholas Cocke sonne Nicholas, i.e. John's grandson Nicholas, son of Nicholas.

The "cat amongst the pigeons" mentioned by CT above are probably the children of Nicholas Cock junior, with daughter Jone named after her grandmother, the Jone Cock buried in 1600. (The origin of the name Phillip is a greyer issue since different parts of the Cock family are using it as a boy's name or under variants as a girls name.)

While the transcript of the will implies that John's son Nicholas is still living, the burial of Jone would clearly indicate otherwise (assuming I am correctly placing her).

[lipkatatar]

I have received John Tanner's research and have studied it with much interest. While the theory of illegitimate Grenville descent is well argued and perfectly plausible, given the available evidence, I agree with John that we have to continue to seek further evidence.

The main problem with researching non-landowning families back before parish records is the lack of documentary evidence. However, there is a vast source of such information freely available on the internet from the records of the Court of Common Pleas. These were roughly the equivalent of modern Small Claims Courts. The majority of individuals who are recorded in these records are yomen, husbandmen, tradesmen, merchants, fishermen, labourers, etc. The bad news is that these records are, for the most part in medieval Latin, and the images often of poor quality. Each record provides the name of the plaintiff, and often the name of the attorney acting for the plaintiff. This is followed by the name, place of residence and occupation of the defendants in the case, and any alias they may be known by. Fortunately occupations are normally given in English. For more complicated cases we also find details of other individuals involved in the dispute. So, even without understanding Latin, there is a wealth of information available.

By the end of the 16th Century there appear to have been around 100,000 Common Pleas cases a year in England. If 2% of these were from Cornwall, and one in 20 of the Cornish cases from Penwith, then there should be around 100 Common Peas cases a year naming at least two individuals from Penwith. More bad news is that the records are not indexed and are not ordered by county, so it is necessary to work through many thousands of images to find the ones of interest to a Penwith researcher.

Below is the index page for the online images. Firstly, you have to select a reign. This takes you to a page listing all the images available for each year that reign. The Common Pleas images (CP40) are in the left hand column.

aalt.law.uh.edu/IndexPri.html



The link below is a typical image for the year 1599. There are an average of 4 cases per image, and each case is identified by county on the left of the image - Cornub for Cornwall. The quality in the image below is not great, but it is still possible to make out the individuals involved in the disputes. For example, in the first case we have Richard Elles, through his attorney John Prouze, taking action against Nicholas Turner of Launceston, merchant.

aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT7/Eliz/CP40no1620/aCP40no1620fronts/IMG_0449.htm

[lipkatatar]

Regarding the date of birth of Elizabeth Godolphin:- We know that Margaret Glynn and William Godolphin were married before 1512, as John Glynn settled property on Margaret and William in the year before his death.

If anyone has started to trace back the ancestry of Elizabeth Godolphin, can I point out that the claim made in the Visitations that Margaret Glynn's mother was a Fulford from Devon is complete nonsense. If anyone is interested, I have a theory that she was Katherine Tremaine.

[gandolf]

By the end of the 16th Century there appear to have been around 100,000 Common Pleas cases a year in England. If 2% of these were from Cornwall, and one in 20 of the Cornish cases from Penwith, then there should be around 100 Common Peas cases a year naming at least two individuals from Penwith. More bad news is that the records are not indexed and are not ordered by county, so it is necessary to work through many thousands of images to find the ones of interest to a Penwith researcher.

I did stumble across this site earlier this year, lipkatatar, but hadn't done much a lot with it. A couple of times I used it to view copies of other types of documents where I had a specific source reference from another index (e.g. Feet of Fines).

However with the figures quoted above, I suspect it may actually be easier to literally find a needle in haystack than a specific relevant Common Plea!
Even if you are working in a relatively small date range, it could still take hundreds of hours to view all the possible images - a depressing thought.

[gandolf]

To expand on the Cock family in more detail, this is how I currently see things.

John Cock (born est. 1540, bur. 14 Jan 1600/01 St. Just in Penwith)
mar.
Margaret Langdon (born est. 1540, died before 1600)
Known children:
- Thomas Cock (born est. 1570)
- Nicholas Cock (born est. 1572)
- Alson Cock (born est. 1574)
- Female Cock (birth order not clear, marr. Thomas Mathew)
- Female Cock (birth order not clear, marr. James Harry)

Combining data from from John Cock's will (proved 1601) with the Easter Book records, and hints from surviving parish records, the details of the children are:

- An unnamed daughter marries Thomas Mathew and would appear to have at least one daughter.
- An unnamed daughter marries James Harry and would appear to have at least one son, John Harrys.
- Alson Cock married around 1591 or 1592 (possibly at Sennen) to an unknown husband. That husband is apparently dead two years later since Alson seems to move back in with her father and is recorded as a widow in the Easter Books.

Nicholas Cock (born est. 1572)
m. 
Jone (surname unknown) (bur. 17 Jan 1600 St. Just in Penwith)
Known children:
- Nicholas Cock  (born est. 1594)
  (married by 1610 but not clear to whom - two known children, Jone who is buried 16 Apr 1612 at St. Just & Phillip who is buried 4 May 1612 at St. Just)

The remaining child of John & Margaret Cock:
Thomas Cock (born est. 1570, of bur. 28 Feb 1644 St. Just in Penwith), of Carnorth (i.e. Carnyorth) when died.
1st. mar
Paschase (surname unknown) (bur. 7 Jul 1599 St. Just in Penwith)
Known children:

- Thomas Cock (stillborn, bur. 5 Jul 1599)
Thomas Cock (1570-1644)
2nd. mar. 13 Oct 1599 St. Just in Penwith
Margaret Williams (bur. 17 Jul 1642 St. Just in Penwith)
Known children:

- Beatris Cock (born est. 1601, bur. 3 Mar 1602/03 St. Just in Penwith)
- Mary Cock (born est. 1604)
- Pasches Cock (born est. 1608)
- William Cock (born est. 1610)
- John Cock (born est. 1615)

The next generation:

Mary Cock (born est. 1604, bur. 5 Mar 1663/4 St. Just in Penwith)
mar. 12 Jan 1628/9 St. Just in Penwith
John Otts (born est. 1600, bur. 23 Feb 1664/5)
Known children:
Richard Oates (1630-1662) marr. 1655/6 Alse Worden
Margaret Otts (1632-  )
Ann Otts (1635-  )
Julian (Juliana) Otts (1637-1714) marr. 1658 Paskow Greinfield
Prudence Otts (1638-  )
John Otes (1639-  )
Thomas Otes (1642-  )
Matthias Otes (1645-1646)
James Otes (1648-  )

Pasches Cock (born est. 1608 )
mar.  9 Jun 1629 St. Just in Penwith
John Clemow (  )
Known children:
Martin Clemow (1631-  )
Israel Clemow (1634-  )
Prudence Climo (1640-  )


William Cock (born est. 1610, apparently the William son of Thomas buried 26 Sep 1643 St. Just in Penwith)
mar. 7 Jan 1637/8 St. Just in Penwith
Sarah Thomas (  )
Known children:
Nicholas Cock (1638-  ) marr. 1651 Phillipe Oliver. (Nicholas may have remarried a second time in 1662 to Mary Thomas)
William Cock (1640-1643)
John Cock (1644-  ) marr. 1666 Pasches Thomas alias Trails
Philip Cock (1647-  )
Pasches Cock (1650-  )
Jone/Jane Cock (1652-1653)
Marrie Cock (1656-  )
Earth Cock (1658-  )

Jone Cock (born est. 1612 )
mar. 10 Apr 163 St. Just in Penwith
Richard Ustick (  )
Known Children:
Richard Ustick (1631-  )
Methusalem Ustick (1637-  )

John Cock (born est. 1615, died 22 Mar 1666, bur 24 Mar 1666 St. Just in Penwith)
mar. (almost certainly the 2 Oct 1632 marriage at Mawnan, indexed as between John Cock and Mary Williams)
Margaret Williams ( died aft 1666)
Known children:
Thomas Cock (1633- ) marr. 1656 Ann Oates (dau of Thomas Oates)
Phillish (Phillipa?) Cock (1636-  ) marr. 1653 Thomas Matthew
Margaret Cock (1639-  ) marr. 1659 George Sands
William Cock (1642-  )

----------
There are also a couple of strays wandering around St. Just in Penwith that are likely connected somehow (since almost every other person/record with that surname is), but their place is currently unknown:
- Bernard Cock, who marries Elizabeth Bette at St. Just in 1660 and has a daughters Margaret and two more who die young - Elizabeth & unnamed daughter.
- Alls (Alson/Alison?) Cock, who marries at St. Just in 1659 to Thomas Oates.
- Philip Cock
bur 30th October 1629 (perhaps a son of Thomas & Margaret Cock?)
- Martin Cock 23rd November 1629 (perhaps a son of Thomas & Margaret Cock?)
- Elizabeth Cock, widow bur 28 Aug 1653 (perhaps the wife of Philip or Martin?)