Cornish connections are indeed wide, Zib! Years ago old men would swear they had never "been abroad" but in conversation would mention working in the US or S. Africa! They never really considered that "abroad"! My Magor branch, who emigrated to S. Africa remained there and did very well from themselves, but my Portreath emigrees returned (on American passports) for their retirement. They were a lovely couple, each living well into their nineties!
It's fascinating that Zib has discovered that she is in fact descended from the family, a son of whom Mary Ann set up home with, and raised a swathe of children!
I do realize that the extent of the tests only go so far back, but I am experiencing connections beyond what I expected when the population is small or isolated i.e. US colonists or a religious faith that forbade or discouraged intermarriage.
While I have so far had little luck finding confirmed matches to my Cornish ancestry, I do have to agree with you regarding matching in small or isolated populations. For example, I understand from my reading that the Jewish population are considered a special case because of extremely narrow genetic base due to intermarriage.
My suspicion is that to some extent the Cornish will be similar to the more isolated parts of Ireland - particularly the southwest. From the work I am doing trying to sort out a family of interest to me is that in cases where we can document the relationship, a number of the relationships as estimated via atDNA are actually documented as further away than the estimate via DNA - e.g. a documented fourth-cousin relationship showing as a third-cousin estimate via DNA. Similarly I am getting a lot of 3rd to 4th cousin matches that simply cannot be documented at all despite being in the surviving document period - often the matches are with people whose family comes from parts of Ireland hundreds of miles from anywhere my own direct ancestors are from.
So my suspicion is that for smaller and relatively isolated populations (Irish and of course also the Cornish), it may be necessary to treat them as a milder form of the Jewish situation and read atDNA estimates as potentially being 1,2 or 3 generations closer than the paper trail might otherwise suggest.
In my own case, my test makes me about 50% "Irish" (according to Ancestry), which is consistent with my high level of Irish immigrant ancestors. So my recent interest has been there, and in particular one corner of my family that come from a small parish on the west coast of Co. Clare. Without going into the situation too deeply since this is a Cornish board, the family name is Sexton and based on oral family history passed down several lines and hints from the surviving records (the main ones, parish records, only start in 1839) the the family is supposed to have had a common ancestor who "arrived in the area in the mid seventeenth century" during the time of Cromwell.
My own feeling at the moment is that there is some truth to the oral history, but that it was mid 1700's (i.e. eighteenth century) rather than 100 years earlier. So far we have well over 20 people who test as cousins to at least 4 or 5 of the rest of the group, and a couple test as a match to almost everyone (though this pair are local to the area and also have more than one line of Sexton ancestry). The end result is a complicated matrix of matches that indicates the whole group must be related in some way. And what all the tested people have in common is a Sexton ancestor who originated in the relevant parish at or before the start of surviving records, which is pointing to the common ancestor in the mid to late 1700s as being plausible since all test as around 4-6 cousins to each other.
I did find a land record (stored in old dead computer) that was between Christopher Cock on the lives of a number of daughters. 6, I believe, and dated before the birth of his youngest daughter, Mary. That would establish the existence of another daughter who might have been the wife of Christopher Trewhela.
I have finally found my notes re: the above. Apologies -- it was not a lease that I had seen but a reference to a will. I printed out the page from Kathy Weigel's Weigel/Weaver/Hampton, etc. tree on Rootsweb with the entry for Christopher Cock not quite 6 years ago. Before entering the details of the bequests made in his will, she noted that "He" (Christopher) is named as the first son in the 1635 will of Thomas Cocke alias Dennis of St. Columb. Thomas' wife is named Margery, and Thomas refers to his son Christopher as having six (my emphasis) children at that time." Since the birth of Christopher and wife Jane's daughter, Mary, is estimated at 1638, there would need to be another child besides Christopher, Jane, Thomas, Marjorie and Ann in order for there to have been six children by 1635. The daughter who is suspected to have married Chirstopher Trewhela would fit into that timeframe.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 10, 2017 1:32:14 GMT -5
Thanks Zib - I don't have any approximate birthdate for Mary but I did have seven children for Christopher with one being the unknown wife of Christopher Trewhella. I had been intrigued with your mention of a lease document but your note now reminds me where I initially got the information - I had quite forgotten about Thomas Cock and his Will!
I had to set the DNA "stuff" aside for awhile and come back to ponder it. I have been working on my Ancestry DNA matches for 11 months and finally have just under 200 more to review. I went back to Gedmatch and ran some more comparisons, and Citroen Lady, I noticed we share XDna. The Trewhela line is on my mother's father's side of the family, and he would have inherited 100% of his XDna from his mother. She came from Sweden, so I am ruling that out Our Bartill link is also on his side of the family; I am leaning toward my connection to you being via the Tremaynes even though that goes pretty far back. As to my "cousin" who was kind enough to share his results on Gedmatch, we are both descendants of Thomas Trewhela and Martha Blewett with one really strong matching segment-- it could be on either line.
Hopefully, as more people test, I will get a new clue.
I have few new ideas and am looking for some input. Citroen Lady shared some information via private messages re: exploring our DNA match, and I am know considering a new viewpoint. I don't have Hamptons in my direct line, but I am wondering if Robert Hampton and Ann Cock (daughter of Christoper Cock and Jane Penhellick had a second son Robert circa 1674 who may have been the father of a James Hampton who may have married Amy Bennetts?
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 15, 2017 5:03:28 GMT -5
Zib - as it currently appears in my database the situation is as follows:-
Robert Hampton and Ann Cock had seven children with their youngest son Robert being the second of that name the first having died within a few weeks of being christened. Now then - this youngest son Robert appears to have been married twice, firstly to someone named Grace (no details found) and then on October 1st 1721 he married Elizabeth Bennatts nee Painter at St Erth. Elizabeth had been previously married at Lelant in 1684 to Thomas Bennatts. From the younger Robert's first marriage to Grace I know of three children - Robert (1697-1697), Elizabeth (1703/4 St Erth married Stephen Rule) and James who had been baptized at St Erth 1st February 1698. James married Amy Bennatts at Lelant 15th June 1723 and in March 1737 was killed in Wheal Fortune mine.
Post by spikeharwood on Mar 15, 2017 16:47:45 GMT -5
Just as an aside, the Stephen Rule who married Elizabeth Hampton was a son of Johnson Rule who was my 7x great grandfather.
I've just been reminded about this post and wish to retract it, just for the record:
A few years back, given my Rule connections, I joined the Rules of Cornwall (and Beyond) Facebook Group. I soon learned that I had given my 3xgreat grandmother, Mary Rule the wrong parents and that they should have been John Rule and Ann Edwards. All the Rules of Cornwall are related and descend from “old Robert” who was buried in 1619. Two of his sons formed distinct lines which I refer to as the Johnson line and the Christopher line. Citroenlady is in the Johnson line which I was back then but now I’m in the Christopher line. Still related, just a bit more distantly.
Last Edit: Aug 17, 2020 5:28:15 GMT -5 by spikeharwood: new information to hand!!
Post by spikeharwood on Jul 14, 2017 19:09:26 GMT -5
Well thanks for that. I think if I knew all the descendants of all my lines, the Johnson Rule/Rebecca Veale line would have the highest number. I don't have a DNA match with Paul or yourself on Ancestry, but it is a long way back. Do you happen to know if Paul is on GEDmatch? I had noticed his name before given that my great grandmother was a Hocking but there was no obvious link between our Hockings. I've added all of the above to my database and tidied up a few things along the way.
Post by citroenlady on Jul 15, 2017 5:54:46 GMT -5
I don't know, Spike. I will try to spend some time later to determine whether he is or not. I've been a bit overwhelmed with other things recently. Always good to receive confirmation of the paper trail via DNA! It can shed light on a lot of confusion
Post by citroenlady on Mar 17, 2018 14:24:42 GMT -5
I have made something of a discovery, I think.
Every now and again I have a poke round the John Trewheeler/Grace mystery, but a couple of days ago I discovered John that a conviction for bigamy! He served 9 months in Bodmin gaol. "If" his marriage to Grace was bigamous, it would have been expunged from the record, presumably. CT - over to you. Do you have what might fit as a first (legal) marriage for John?
I also found another conviction for the theft of a mason's trowel, complete with a physical description of John himself. Fascinating stuff!
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 17, 2018 21:41:55 GMT -5
The first 'problem' with this assumption is that the Bigamy case happened in 1815 which is around 7 years before the first known link to Grace can be found through the baptism of their son William at Redruth. That does not definitively remove John and Grace from the equation but it is certainly an important point. The bigamous marriage had to have taken place sometime before the 1815 Assizes hearing and it directly implies that there must have been at least one legitimate marriage beforehand.
My personal opinion is that the bigamous marriage has nothing to do with John and Grace - but I will explain more in a moment. Aside from the not-yet-found marriage for John and Grace it is also interesting to note that of four known children to this couple it is only William for whom a baptism has been found! There is also Elizabeth (born about 1824/5), Matthew (born about 1829/30) and Mary Ann (born about 1832/3) who can all be found in the 1841 Census with John and Grace. I now believe Elizabeth travelled to South Australia where (as Elizabeth Troughwellin) she married James Marshall in 1848. Matthew married Jane Northey at St Blazey in 1853 and I think turned up in the US whilst Mary Ann married 1st William Rowe in the Liskeard area in 1857 and 2nd married Christopher Bodinnar at the Liskeard Register Office in 1859.
Returning to the Bigamy case - this one has been on my mind for many years and there a couple of times that I thought I had solved the problem. And once again I thought I had just solved it but found one small anomaly that has made me stop and think again.
I believe the man involved is probably the elder brother of Richard Trewheeler whose family ended up in Russia. John Trewhela was baptized at Kenwyn in 1758 and definitely married twice but had no children and he seems to have spent most of his life down around the St Gluvias/Mabe/Falmouth area.
I suspect the bigamous marriage is that of John Trewheeeler of Wendron widower and Jane Bond widow which took place at Falmouth in 1814.
I need to recheck my work but once that is done and once I am happy with the results again I will post my proposed solution.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 17, 2018 22:21:58 GMT -5
Okay - there do appear to be still a couple of anomalies with the 'marks' used by brides in this scenario but after investigating other possibilities I seem to have no option but to accept that the conclusion I was about to present in my last post must be correct. I will therefore outline it for you now. As I think I mentioned earlier this bigamous marriage has been on my mind for years with several attempts to solve the identity of John Trewhela but this time I do think I may have the answer.
I have again checked a list of possible marriages that could be involved and have eliminated several that can be proved cannot be involved. I am left with three possibilities and a comparison of the signiatures on two of those are sufficient to suggest my conclusion may be correct. The two similar signiatures are on documents from 1786 and 1811 but except for the fact that the surname was 'Trewhelar' in 1786 and 'Trewhela' in 1811 there is no doubt the same man signed. The third document was signed using a 'mark' and I only have a Bishops Transcript copy but I believe it is the bigamous marriage. To summarize the sequence of events leading to my conclusion:-
Records for this Trewhella family show the name spelt many different ways including 'Trewhela', 'Trewheler' and 'Trewheellar'. I will quote the events as they are found in the various registers beginning with the baptism of John whose parents were William Trewheela and Elizabeth Tremellen (1st of three wives) who married at Kenwyn 23rd February 1753.
1. John son of William Trewhela baptized 3rd September 1758 Kenwyn (younger brother Richard is the progenitor of the Russian family)
2. John Trewhelar of the Parish of Budock bachelor and Susannah Harvey of the Parish of Illuggan spinster were married by Licence 25th February 1786 at Budock. (groom signed his name 'John Trewhelar) Witnesses - William Williams and Ricd. Truewheeler (both signed) (Note - the second witness was John's brother but note the difference in the way each spelled their surname!)
There were no children from this marriage which can be explained by the fact that Susannah was buried at St Gluvias in 1810 at the age of 73!! (she was about 20 years older than John!)
3. John Trewheela widower and Jane Trevena widow both of the Parish of Penryn were married by Banns 16th February 1811 at St Gluvias. (groom signed his name 'John Trewhela') Witnesses - John Baird and Jane Trevena.
John was about age 53 by this time and again there were no children. Jane was born Jane Tredwen and had first married Walter Trevena at St Gluvias in 1789.
The Bigamous Marriage:- 4. John Trewheeler of the Parish of Wendron widower and Jane Bond of Falmouth widow were married by Licence 5th August 1814 at Falmouth. (groom made his mark) Witnesses - John Beals, Jno Pollard.
Again no children and, more importantly, no sign of this Jane beyond this point .... at least not as a Trewhela (var.)
5. John Trewheeler of Mylor Bridge age 70 was buried at Mylor 13th May 1828
Following the death of John his widow Jane remarried:-
6. Stephen Goodfellow widower and Jane Trewheeler widow both of the Parish of Mylor were married by Banns 8th September 1828 at Mylor.
My earlier hesitation was due to the mark made by Jane when she married Stephen Goodfellow. It was very similar to that presented in the BTs as a copy of the mark made by Jane Bond in the 1814 Falmouth marriage. But on checking the marriages of Jane Tredwen to Walter Trevena and then Jane Trevena to John Trewhela I found that Jane's mark had been totally different on every occasion. I did check again to make sure there could be no other Trevena marriage involved found that the marriage to Walter was the only possibility.
So, as again mentioned previously, the 1815 Bigamy case meant that the bigamous marriage had to have occurred before that date and it also meant that there had to have been at least one other marriage for John Trewhela prior to that one. With all other John Trewhella (var.) marriages taken care it means that the above scenario must be the correct one (based on all available records and evidence).