FamilySearch has Seth Dunn bap. 30 March 1806 in Gwinear to parents George and Jennifer. In later censuses he says he was born in Crowan. I can't find on-line original images of the appropriate Gwinear registers so can anyone confirm that Gwinear is correct for the baptism? He doesn't seem to be in the Crowan registers for that date which are actually online at FamilySearch. I'm interested because of a DNA match with one of Seth's descendants which I'm hoping will shed some light on family links in 18th century St.Erth and Crowan.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Aug 13, 2018 7:10:08 GMT -5
Hi Roger - Seth was definitely baptised at Gwinear 30th March 1806 (Gwinear Parish Register) but that does not necessarily mean that he was born there. I notice that on 29th March 1808 George and Jenifer baptised daughter Grace at Crowan. Gwinear and Crowan share a comparitively larger border and both also share a border with St Erth so the possibility of links would be likely.
Thanks for that, CT. I now notice that the OPC Database has 6 baptisms for George and Jennifer equally divided between Crowan and Gwinear with dates between 1806 and 1819. George and Jenifer (Bartle) appear to have married in Crowan in 1800, both said to be otp. You might suspect that there could be other children born to the couple between 1800 and 1806, but there are none I could find except for an 1802 baptism in Gwinear of a George to George Dunn and Jane.
Bartles and Dunns again I tried to write earlier, but my browser locked up. Out of curiosity, I checked my Bartle trees for a possible Jennifer who might match this family group, and found I didn't have one. Digging further, I found a Jennifer baptized Nov 1 1773 at St Erth to William Bartle and Mary (Osborne?) I think said William would have been a brother of my ancestor, Ralph Bartle, who married Margaret Johns at Crowan in 1758.
But then I found a problem in that I hadn't done enough work on William years ago, and thought he had married twice: first to Mary 2nd to Sidwell Abraham. However, the ages/baptisms of the children involved overlap, and I realized there must be more than one William. I have William (husband of Mary) and Ralph's parents as Richard Bartle and Hannah (not certain of her last name-- have seen "Batten" but no evidence) which has me wondering who was the William Bartle who was Sidwell's husband? Or have I placed the wrong man on my tree?
If I have things lined up correctly, I would also be a potential DNA match to descendants of Jennifer and George.
P.S. the masons are back with their synthetic mortar again-- hope I don't sound to "dippy."
Post by Cornish Terrier on Aug 15, 2018 8:30:38 GMT -5
I have William (husband of Mary) and Ralph's parents as Richard Bartle and Hannah (not certain of her last name-- have seen "Batten" but no evidence)
I haven't done too much work on the Bartles although I do have William and Mary in the database along with 13 children. First two are sons named Peter and then Robert with the third being Richard and then some years later the first daughter was a Hannah who lived about a year. Another daughter was named Hannah in 1771 which suggests it may have been the name of William's mother but naming the first son Peter would make me hesitate about his father. Robert was certainly an Osborn name in that area and in fact Mary Osborn's parents were Robert Osborn and Parthenia Trevailer.
The marriage of Richard and Hannah is recorded in the Crowan PR as follows:-
Anno Domini 1717 Richd. Barcle and Hannah his wife was married the 26 of Xber (26th December)
If anyone has a maiden name for Hannah then it probably came from a Will ................ or else they were guessing!
The earliest entry in this family line on the tree published by my DNA match is a William Bartle and Mary Osborne, parents of Jennifer. I've not researched this myself but, for what it's worth William is said to be bap. Crowan 27 Mar 1725, bur. St. Erth 25 Feb 1791, whereas Mary is said to be born in Zennor and bur. St. Erth 1 Feb 1791 (the tree actually says the dates are 'born' and 'died' but I've assumed that they must be baptisms and burials from the registers).
As for the 1803 baptism for George Donn found by CT, I'm not convinced that it would be a second baptism of the same child. I know it's not a strict rule, but the CofE generally required that baptism should be performed once - when there has been a private baptism, any later public ceremony has been called something like 'received into the church'. Of course it sometimes happens, but in the example I'm thinking of the second baptism was in an adjacent parish. So I suppose I'm thinking that that there may be an unrecorded death for the first infant George - it would help to fill in the gap up to 1806 when the couple started to baptise a large family.
Thanks for your comments. I do have a further query on the antecedents of George Dunn, which I hope you may be able to help with, but I will post this in the Crowan section where it seems most appropriate.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Aug 16, 2018 19:59:13 GMT -5
Roger - I have seen many variations of the private followed by public baptism scenario and I can tell you that there are several ways to say the same thing.
Here are some examples that I have seen:-
2 baptisms for one child with neither mentioning the word 'private' or 'public' and also no mention of 'recd. into the Church'
2 baptisms for one child with no note on the first to say it is private but with a note on the second 'recd. into the Church'
1 baptism in a non-conformist chapel then (sometimes up to several years later) a baptism in the CofE Church with no explanations or notes
Same as above but with the latter noting 'recd. into the Church'
CofE baptism followed sometime later by a NC Chapel baptism for the same child.
A single baptism with the note 'recd. into the Church' but no reference to any previous baptism
And the list goes on …..
I searched for a possible burial for that first George Dunn/Donn but could not find one and hence my suggestion of a private then public baptism. If there were rules regarding the process and recording of private and public baptisms then I think they were, as with many other things, adhered to very loosely.