Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2017 10:36:49 GMT -5
Good afternoon
With all due respect CT you are way off the mark, I merely read the post from Donne and your response to it. The reason I asked was to do with this newspaper item...
My initial search did not find a death entry for Israel in FreeBMD. My sole reason for asking was to ascertain where I would be better off looking for a death entry. I will try Familysearch as you suggest.
Regarding your comment about the daughter of Andrew in the 1841 census, I believe looking at all the available evidence she could just as easily be in the Workhouse as could have been the wife of Thomas. It would be good to find the second Elizabeth in the 1841 census I agree.
Trinklady
|
|
|
Post by donne on Oct 17, 2017 13:29:55 GMT -5
Try the data set "Deaths at sea, 1781-1968 Transcription" on FindMyPast. FindMyPast is a subscription site but one I've found very useful.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 17, 2017 21:29:45 GMT -5
My comment was prompted by your apparent fixation on why the 1842 death is more likely not the wife of Thomas. But your suggestion that the Elizabeth at the Workhouse in the Census might equally be one or other of the two Elizabeth Quicks under discussion bemuses me a little. You seem to be suggesting that on the one hand the GRO and the Workhouse death register might have both recorded the age wrong and that on the other hand the Census Enumerator has made the same mistake when he took the 1841 Census! In actual fact I think the sole document that is different is the St Ives Parish Register which records the age at burial as 37. This one suggests the 1842 Death to be that of the daughter of Andrew Quick whilst the 1841 Census, the Workhouse Death Register and the GRO Index would suggest it was the wife of Thomas. Certainly it would be most useful if the other Elizabeth could be found in 1841 but it is possible she may never been found in that source perhaps because she left Cornwall, and perhaps the UK, after her father's death in 1836 or perhaps she died prior to 1841 and the record of the event is lost. It is not uncommon to find an event was not recorded in the Parish Register but was recorded in the Bishops Transcripts. Unfortunately no BTs for St Ives are available for this period so that possibility cannot be checked. And I did suggest in an earlier post that there is another child of Andrew and Elizabeth Quick who cannot be found after being mentioned in Andrew's 1836 Will - son Paul! I did suggest the possibility that wherever Paul went then possibly Elizabeth followed. These are the only two children of Andrew and Elizabeth Quick who are not accounted for after 1836. CT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 3:05:14 GMT -5
Good morning CT
Once again CT you suggest that I think something that I do not. I have never said that I believe that the 1842 death is more likely to be the daughter of Andrew. But I am saying that until some conclusive proof presents itself, such as the whereabouts of the baby Catherine in 1841, or the second Elizabeth in 1841, then any conclusion reached must be tentative and both options remain on the table.
I am also saying that the GRO, the 1841 census enumerator would have received their date from the date given and entered in the Workhouse register whenever it was that Elizabeth arrived there. Therefore it is no surprise to me that all three ages concur with each other. The enumerator recorded her as being from Cornwall... right or wrong?? who knows. As Donne said she obviously was never asked.
The fact that she is listed as a pauper does not make sense for either woman... the wife of a Master Mariner working the Coastal trade or the daughter of a farmer with various siblings. Was she in fact in the Workhouse for reasons other than being a pauper?
It is only when the body is removed from the Workhouse and its associated registers to St Ives does the age change.. my point was simply that perhaps in St Ives someone knew more of this Elizabeth than the Workhouse did. Once again though there is no proof.
Thomas's second marriage says that he was a widower. Quite believable of course, but as we have seen with John Michell Quick, not always to be trusted.
So my view is that there is not enough conclusive evidence to show which Elizabeth is which. I do not have a preference but I am open minded to either one being the death in 1842.
I agree with you also in the fact that Elizabeth may have emigrated, albeit very early in the emigration exodus, and possibly with her brother Paul, both of whom do not appear as wtitnesses or the like in the marriages etc of their siblings. But for me it is the location of this second Elizabeth or the baby Catherine that I would like to find.
Trinklady
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 18, 2017 3:20:36 GMT -5
I would also like to find the second Elizabeth in 1841 - IF she were still alive - and I would certainly like to find young Catherine Smith Quick in that same resource. However on the currently available evidence I have leant towards the 1842 Death being that of the wife of Thomas Quick and will maintain that position until/unless further evidence surfaces to warrant a change.
Time to move on I think.
CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 19, 2017 4:24:16 GMT -5
Do you have the actual date of death for this Elizabeth? If so then could you perhaps post the complete details for me so that I can picture the event properly please.
CT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2017 14:28:36 GMT -5
Good evening
I have this list of details for the death Elizabeth Quick Died 1st January 1854 at Barnoon, St Ives Aged 86 years, widow of Henry Quick, a miner Died of old age Informant William Toy of Barnoon, St Ives
I do not have the certificate.
Trinklady
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 19, 2017 15:39:37 GMT -5
Thankyou. I know William Toy and his wife were neighbours of Elizabeth but have not been able to find a marriage for them. I think I mentioned previously that they were supposedly both born at Helston but I don't think there was any connection other than that of neighbours.
CT
|
|
|
Post by poyle on Oct 2, 2018 16:06:54 GMT -5
From prior discussions, I gather there is some question whether the wife of Thomas Quick, Master Mariner, would have ended up on a workhouse for the poor. Assuming the Thomas in question is the son of William Quick and Elizabeth Hollow, b. Towednack, 1805, I would to add some additional information. Thomas was name in his father's (written 1831) to property leases in Treveal. He was listed as the Lessee on these properties on the 1839 Tithe Map. The property was occupied by his brother, Robert Quick. William Sr. died in 1841. Thomas took possession in 1842. When he did, he had to pay the Estate £100. However, he sold the property to Peter Bardgwanath Quick for £250. So unless he was in debt before, he was not poor in 1842. It would therefore seem unlikely that his wife would have died in a workhouse.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 2, 2018 16:29:25 GMT -5
Nevertheless ….. the available evidence says she did! I also just found Elizabeth in the 1841 Census in the Workhouse at Madron. The surname had been transcribed on Ancestry as RUICK.
We don't know where Thomas Quick was in 1841 or in 1842 prior to the sale to Peter B Quick and we do not know his financial status to that point. The death record for Elizabeth states that she died of 'inflammation of the chest' and although it does not specify how long the condition had lasted it is possible that illness was the cause of her being in the Workhouse.
It is also possible that Thomas had deserted Elizabeth (or vice versa) which could be another reason for her being in the Workhouse. But she would certainly not be the first 'unexpected' person to be found in such an institution!
CT
|
|
|
Post by Glazin2018 on Oct 3, 2018 1:55:26 GMT -5
Good evening
For what it is worth the infirmary at the Penzance Workhouse at Madron was opened in 1838 and therefore having a medical condition in 1842 would be a valid reason for being at the Workhouse.
Lannanta
|
|
|
Post by poyle on Oct 3, 2018 2:16:45 GMT -5
Agreed, it is possible that Thomas was not taking care of his family. There is also evidence that the WQ-Elizabeth Hollow children did not get along. William jr. and Paul contested William seniors will. They lost their case. It is clear that on William Sr.'s death, James and Robert helped Thomas sell the property in Treveal as soon as they could (1 year). Robert then moved to Trevessa. It is possible that James and Robert were the driving force behind the 1831 Will--10 years before William Senior died. They and Thomas were the main beneficiaries.
I have also been looking for William Jr., who moved to Penzance in the 1830s and became a bailiff. So far I have found no records of him apart from father at birth and the contested will. He was living on Jennings St. in 1841. There were a few substantial houses on that street but mostly small tenements. One of the more substantial houses was occupied by Jane Quick. I don't know the relationship. William jr.'s daughter, Elizabeth, who married John Medlin, seems to have done OK in Penance after her father's death, eventually moving to Camberwell and Penrith Streets before departing for the US. It is interesting to track how William Sr.'s family drifted apart.
|
|
|
Post by Glazin2018 on Oct 3, 2018 3:27:21 GMT -5
Hello Poyle
In fact he was for some time in 1840 and 1841 admitted to the Penzance Dispensary in Chapel Street (an old hospital) where he was listed as a bailiff and also a poor man. I do not have an up to date record of those admissions, only a note from some years back but he obviously fell on hard times.
Lannanta
|
|
|
Post by Glazin2018 on Oct 3, 2018 3:49:09 GMT -5
CT
I think that you might have to take a deep breath my friend.
I have only just been reading this thread that you had with other members some time ago. It appears as if there were two options for an Elizabeth, one the wife of Thomas as you suggest and the other a daughter of Andrew Quick.
Well, from the Penzance Dispensary Admissions in August 1835 there was a 30 year old "poor girl" called Elizabeth Quick from St Ives. Now that can really only be one Elizabeth Quick surely... the daughter of Andrew.... so she is living about Penzance and she is a pauper..... and if she ended up in the Workhouse when it opened in 1838 or thereabouts she has to be a sitter for the Elizabeth being discussed and that makes the age at the St Ives burial record correct.
What do you think?
Lannanta
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 3, 2018 6:55:32 GMT -5
I believe I have previously mentioned that William was buried at Towednack 21st November 1841 at the age of 52. At the time of his death he was 'of Penzance'. (Towednack Parish Register)
I did not know about the 1835 record but all the other known information was chewed up and spat around for ages with lots of discussion about just which Elizabeth Quick died in 1842. The conclusion that it must have been the wife of Thomas Quick was based on three things:-
1. the 1841 Census which shows and Elizabeth Quick age 27 in the Penzance Union Workhouse 2. a transcript from the Penzance Union Death Register which states that Elizabeth Quick, pauper, age 28 died at the Union Workhouse 28th March 1842 3. the GRO Death Index which shows the death of an Elizabeth Quick in the Penzance Union Registration District in the March Qtr of 1842 age 28 (thus confirming point 2. above)
A fourth item involved in the discussion was the burial of Elizabeth Quick of Union Workhouse age 37 at St Ives 30th March 1842.
Every detail points to the deceased having been the wife of Thomas Quick given all other Elizabeth Quicks around the same age were accounted for. The only anomaly is that the age is recorded as 37 in the the St Ives Burial register but the other details of this burial suggest it is the same person.
From memory there was also some discussion at the time the above was being tossed about regarding the fact that another of Andrew Quick's children (youngest son Paul) could also not be found after being mentioned in his father's 1836 Will.
We know that Thomas Quick's wife Elizabeth (nee Hogg) was still alive in 1841 because she registered the birth of her daughter Catherine Smith Quick on February 6th 1841. We also know that Thomas Quick was a widower by 1853 when he remarried and that first wife Elizabeth cannot be found in the 1851 Census. The conclusion from that is that she died sometime between 6th February 1841 and the 1851 Census. The 1841 Census recorded alluded to above matches this Elizabeth so, tentatively, she was still alive in June 1841 and thus would be the Elizabeth who died at the Workhouse in March 1842.
Elizabeth daughter of Andrew Quick would have been age 36 or 37 at the time of the 1841 Census but even if her age was rounded down to 30 she still cannot be found in that Census. And apart from the 1842 St Ives burial I have not been able to find another record for her but as shown above other information would indicate that burial record should be considered unreliable.
The death certificate 'might' solve the problem but only if it includes some detail of the marital status of the deceased.
CT
|
|