Jane Curnow married Peter Child(s?) Woolwich 1836

[sue]

I have been looking again at early Curnows in London, who are primarily descendants of Wm Curnow~Martha Grenfell of St Ives.

I've been down the library peering at marriage records, and found some useful validating information in the fomr of witnesses etc.

Amongst my queried items I have this:
Jane Curnow married Peter Child 3 January 1836 St Mary, Woolwich, borough of Greenwich, with consent as regards the bride. There were no Curnow witnesses.

So she would have been less than 21 years old in 1836, so born c1816-1820.

On FS in 1851 I find them along the road at Deptford, Peter Child age 38 a stonemason born Canterbury, Jane Child age 36 born Penzance, children Elizabeth, Catherine, Peter, Jane, Mary & Susan.

On FS in 1861 I find Jane Childs at Upper Gifford Street Islington, with children Catherine, Peter, Jane, Mary, Susan & William. Jane is declared as age 41 born Penzance; husband same age, a stonemason born Canterbury, Kent.

I am a little surprised to find I can't at present see a baptism for a Jane or Jenefer 1814 - 1820 in West Penwith to fit the bill, that I haven't already accounted for. Doubtless I am missing something pretty obvious!

Help in identifying Jane Curnow c.1815 Penzance & surrounding area much appreciated!

Sue

[Cornish Terrier]

Well, Sue, if this Jane Curnow was born in Cornwall then it would seem she was (and still is!!!) well hidden! Like you I can find no possible candidate for the marriage to Peter Child/s unless ...................

I do actually have one Jane Curnow who is not adequately accounted for by direct evidence as far as I can tell and I only mention her because of that 'minor' detail.

Jane daughter of Thomas Curnow and Phillis Berryman was baptized at Towednack 17th April 1814 and would have turned 21 in 1835. But 'by consent' does not necessarily mean a person was underage when married - she may merely have been in a position where consent would have to have been obtained regardless of her age.

However, there are already a couple of anomalies with this family. First of all is the burial of Phillis Curnow in 1815 at age 1 when in fact if it was Phillis who had died she would have been age 3. On the other hand age 1 would fit the above Jane leaving Phillis with no burial record. In any event there was another Phillis baptized in 1816 AND another Jane in 1818 with this second Jane not surviving beyond the age of 3 months.

If we take the 1815 burial as being for Phillis but with the incorrect age recorded then we have to consider the possibility that Thomas and Phillis Curnow named a second daughter Jane whilst the first was still living. I don't see any reason why that should be the case given the only Jane in either family (Curnow or Berriman) was the elder sister of Thomas Curnow who married Thomas Ellis at Towednack in 1799.

So - is there a burial for Jane of 1814 that I have not found or do we consider the possibility that she did survive and may have become the wife of Peter Child??

CT

[sue]

Indeed, I have the same view of the Phillis & Jane daughters/burials to Thomas Curnow & wife Phillis Berriman as you.

I have wondered if the burial of 1st Phyllis daughter 19 May 1815 Towednack age "1" when she would have been 3, and age 1 would have matched daughter Jane bptzd 17 Apr 1814 instead, whether actually both little girls died at the same time (cholera or similar) and the 3 year-old Phillis & the 1 year old Jane were erroneously rolled together as one in the church records.

It would be bizarre to name further children Phillis & Jane - as the parents did - if either of their earlier offspring of those given names were still alive. And we know that church records were ofttimes written up from notes, so transcription etc. errors will from time to time have occurred, as they did for example in an 1819 Towednack baptism entry I have examined.

So, with Jane 1814 Towednack I believe being, like you, the only one of the right age in the vicinity that I have not buried or married off, and I don't realistically think she was still alive given the arrival of Jane 15 February 1818 (buried 29 April 1818), I am stumped as to who the bride of Peter Childs up in London could be. I guess she could be someone with a middle name Jane, who had always been known as Jane.... which maybe widens the field.....

Sue

[Cornish Terrier]

A middle name of Jane is definitely a possibility although not so many around that time as there were a little later I think. Of course the other possibility is that we have another illegitimate child baptized under mother's name and becoming a 'Curnow' a little later!

The added problem here is that the claim of being born at Penzance could take in any of around 20 Parishes!

CT