|
Post by Zenobia on May 18, 2007 20:41:09 GMT -5
Many online sources show the original Thomas Curnow of Towednack being born in 1588. This is based on a christening of a Thomas Curnow in St. Keverne in that year. Unfortunately, this seems to be a case of "The Name's the Same" Game.
An analysis of Thomas' known children show that this cannot be possible:
1. Firstly, the Lelant Protestation Return of 1641 shows two persons called Henry Curnow. One of these would be Thomas' son Henry, named in his will. The other would have to be a grandson, presumably a son of the other Henry. Since no one under 16 could sign the ProtRet, the second Henry had to be born by 1625 or earlier. This means that the elder Henry must be born ca. 1600-1603, so Thomas could not possibly be born as late as 1588.
2. Secondly, the Will of William Painter (1635) of Towednack, names wife Margaret and father-in-law Thomas Curnow. Thomas names six daughters in his will, and Margaret is named third. A son, Thomas Painter, was born to William in 1630/1, so his wife must have been born no earlier than about 1608. Another son, David is named in the will; he is underage, and Thomas Curnow is given as the overseer, so it is likely that David was older than Thomas (William Painter's father was named David). This would move Margaret back still another year or two, to about 1605 at the latest and she still had to have two older sisters (not to mention perhaps brothers); again, making Thomas' oldest child born no later than perhaps 1600-1604. So again, a 1588 year of birth for Thomas will not work.
3. Thomas Curnow in his will names a son "John the elder" and another "John the younger". For quite some time John the Elder was presumed to be the John Curnow who settled in Gulval and married Johanna Vibert, while John the Younger was believed to be the husband of John Baragwanath's daughter Mary (J Bara's. will names "Mary C <crossed out> John Curnow's children, my grandchildren"). However, a will of Bawlden James of Zennor, dated 1610, named John Bara. and his wife and two children Mary and Joane, so we now know that John Bara's. children were born much earlier than we formerly thought. This makes "John Curnow the Elder" the husband of Mary Baragwanath, while John Curnow the Younger must have married Johanna Vibert. Since Mary Bara. was born prior to 1610, and her husband is probably a bit older, this too pushes the age of yet another of Thomas Curnow's children back to the first few years of the 1600s.
So all in all, it is quite impossible for Thomas Curnow to have been born in 1588, his true year of birth is probably closer to about 1570.
|
|
|
Post by xstitch1 on May 19, 2007 6:17:43 GMT -5
Hello Zenobia,I found the info about Thomas Curnow interesting as I taken the dates for him from the Family search site, do you who is wife was? as I keep getting different names?and you mention a will is that available on any sites? as now I'm wondering if I've got the children,and did he still die in 1643? Carol
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on May 19, 2007 12:56:35 GMT -5
Hi Carol, Yes, I was looking at the online GedComs on Thomas just last night and they are a fright... There are so many things that we just don't know about Thomas and his children. We do know that he died in Nov. 1843 (his will was written Oct 30, and proved Nov 28); and that he had a wife named Catherine, maiden name unknown. Her death is found in the early Towednack Bishop's Transcripts (go to "Parish Register Transcripts" on the "Links" Board and click West Penwith Resources to access those). Many of the online sources list his wife as Catherine Painter, but that was his daughter in law! We do not know if Catherine was his only wife, and mother of all his children, but at this point we are assuming she was, having nothing better to go on. We know the names of his children from his will, and have a pretty good outline for his sons, but his daughters are all a mystery so far, except for Margaret. Dating the years of birth for his children is difficult; we can estimate some, but the daughters could go anywhere (we assume they are in order in the will) mixed in with the sons. The only child we have a b.d. for is son Matthew, who is listed in the BTs, and who died young. I have tentatively placed Henry as the eldest, ca. 1595, and the last daughter at 1623. This would presume his wife to have been about 20 at the birth of the first child and 48 at the last. Of course, if there was more than one wife, then the scenario could be somewhat different. We do not know who Thomas' parents are, but we know he had a brother John who died at St. Martin's in 1607, and oddly enough, was buried at Gwithian 'in the church'. This John was married in 1584, so was almost certainly an elder brother. We also think he had a younger brother, William Curnow, who married Susanna Trounsen and died at Marazion in 1657 without issue. I have an abstract of Thomas' will online here: webs.lanset.com/azazella/willscor_pen.htmlI will be continuing to post info here about Thomas' children as I find time. There are many Curnows of the third and fourth generation who are currently 'misplaced' and I hope to try and sort them out, using the best evidence available.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on May 19, 2007 14:08:07 GMT -5
Guess I wondered when you would get back to this lot. At the brief glance here it seems you and I are pretty much agreed after years of work on the problem but there is still much to do and many others to convince. I will do what I can to offer further input to this thread but cannot promise immediacy. I have many other things I am looking into and also trying to get some more of those Trewhella, Trewolla etc. clan organised. But please keep calling.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Oct 15, 2007 6:44:33 GMT -5
Zenobia, I read with interest your comments about the claimed birth year of the “original” Thomas Curnow of Towednack. However, I am not sure that I can agree with your conclusion that the Thomas christened at St Keverne in 1588 therefore must be a different person to the Thomas of the 1643 will at Towednack. This is because I feel that there are alternative explanations for the evidence that you have described.
While I think it is highly likely that all the Curnows mentioned in the Penwith area in the decades after 1600 are connections of some sort to this Thomas, whether these references all pertain to children or grandchildren of his strikes me as being not so certain. It is quite possible that he had siblings also living in the same area, and hence that some of the Curnows that you have mentioned are instead the siblings and their own offspring. The presence of other relations is what one might expect to see, too, as it would seem to me to be much less likely that when Thomas and his wife and children relocated to Towednack, that they did so on their own and/or completely away from all of his extended family.
The Curnow surname does not appear in the Penwith area in the published Tudor taxes or muster roll, so the "Towednack" family clearly originated from elsewhere in Cornwall, and of the recorded occurrences of the name in these records the closest geographically to Towednack is in St Martin, which is close by to St Keverne. That there was indeed a St Martin-Towednack Curnow connection is apparent from the admon of John Cornow in 1606, whose burial you have mentioned above. The admon was given to the said John's “brother Thomas Curnow”, and one of the bondsmen of the same was "Thomas Curnow, husbandman of Towednack", evidently the same man. This clearly points to a family relationship between the Curnows of St Martin and those in Towednack. The other bondsman is James Calinsow, husbandman, of Lelant, and given the distance of Lelant from St Martin it is not unlikely that this man was appointed because he was a relative of some sort as well. Whether he was a brother-in-law, or a maternal uncle, or a cousin I can only speculate, but it could possibly be a fruitful avenue for further research. The inventory of John’s estate was compiled by several folk including: 1. A William “Calenso”, probably the William Ca(l)lensow who had four children christened at St Martin between 1607 and 1610, and who was probably also a connection of the above James, and 2. A “Michell” Curnow, who is probably the Michael Curnow who was having children christened at St Keverne around that time, including that same year.
Therefore in relation to the two Henry Curnows of Lelant in 1641 that you mentioned, it is certainly possible that one of them could have been Henry the known son of Thomas of 1643 and the other one a possible namesake grandson of Thomas, as you have proposed. However there are alternative possibilities. For example one of them could’ve been Thomas’ son, and the other a nephew; or one of them could’ve been a brother of Thomas, and the other Thomas’ son; or one of them could have been a brother of Thomas, and the other the brother’s son.
In an article in the CFHS journal in September 2004, Bill Curnow points out that Thomas of 1643 mentions in his will a “cousin” Anthonie Curnow, and that the only presently known candidate for this Anthonie was christened at St Martin in 1588, and whose father was named therein as John “Cornow”. When we look at further details of the Curnows of this area, we find that there was also a Henry christened at St Martin in 1597, whose father was also a John “Cornow”. This Anthonie and Henry were therefore presumably brothers, and their father may well have been the John of the 1606 admon discussed above. This Henry could be therefore one of those present at Lelant in 1641.
Similarly I agree with you that the evidence points to William Painter’s wife as being probably too old to be the daughter of a man born in 1588. However, while it is again certainly possible that the Margaret Curnow who married William Painter, and Thomas' daughter Margaret who is named in his will of 1643, are one and the same person, again I do not think the available evidence precludes any other possibilities, such as the wife of William Painter being a member of the preceding generation of Curnows, in other words her being a sister or even a cousin to the Thomas of 1643. At this point I need to backtrack for a moment back to the 1606 admon. The Curnow bondsman named therein cannot be the Thomas of 1588, because that Thomas would have been too young to have undertaken such responsibilities in 1606. He is therefore clearly of the preceding generation. Either you are correct and this person is the Thomas of 1643, but born prior to 1588, or else he is a Thomas senior and hence the probable father of the Thomas of 1643, in which case Margaret the wife of William Painter could be slotted in as this Thomas senior's daughter instead. The fact that a Margaret was christened in 1581 as a daughter to a Thomas Curnow at St Keverne (see Bill's article re the same) seems to me to allow this. There is also a later Margaret, christened (apparently at either Grade or Mawgan in Meneage) in 1599 to a John Curnow, who may also qualify as a candidate in this instance.
Part of the problem we have with this family is trying to first ascertain the chronology of Thomas’ children. As regards the two John Curnows, “senior” and “junior”, since the marriage of a John to Johanna Vibert is dated to 1639, if the other one married Mary Baragwanath and if this Mary is the same Mary Baragwanath mentioned in the 1610 will of Bawlden James then, as you say, the allocation of the respective husbands would need to be altered. However I am not convinced that it is the same Mary Baragwanath, for reasons I will go into below.
Thomas Curnow “junior” married Joan Martin in 1630, but as one John Martin refers to his godson Robert Curnow in his will of Nov 1629, this Robert was clearly born before this marriage of Thomas junior. However Catherine Painter, the wife of Robert Curnow the son of Thomas was christened in 1632, and it is presumably the same Robert in each instance. We do not have a christening date for her husband, but I’m not persuaded that he would’ve been that much older than his wife, given the death dates for himself (1685) and his wife (1708) especially when combined with the known years of marriage of five of their eight children (viz. 1686, 1689, 1692, 1693 and 1696). On balance I think given these chronological grounds that Thomas junior, husband of Joan Martin, was probably Thomas of 1643’s eldest child, and Robert, the husband of Catherine, was probably his youngest.
As I see it, there is just enough time for Thomas b. 1588 at St Keverne to be the father of Thomas m. 1630. We don't know how old Thomas junior was when he married, but he may have been younger than might otherwise be expected. This is because Johanna Vibert was christened in 1622, so when she married John Curnow in 1639 she was aged at around 17 years of age. Whether this youthfulness at marriage is representative of the Curnow family in the 17th century I cannot say at present, but I think it certainly does alert us to include such possibilities in our chronological thinking on the family. In addition, the above dates for Robert and his children I think point more towards a "later" birth year for the Thomas of 1643, than to an “earlier” one.
The other argument you raised for questioning the 1588 St Keverne christening as being that of Thomas of 1643 pertains to the Baragwanath family, who intermarried with the Curnows, on the grounds that Thomas of 1588 would not have been old enough to have had a son who in turn married a Baragwanath daughter living as early as 1610. The will of Bawlden James of Zennor in that latter year mentions both a Mary Baragwanath and her sister as being daughters of a John B. But is this John B. the same John B. who mentions his grandchildren in his will of 1657? As you have pointed out, some of these grandchildren were stated therein to be the children of a John Curnow, who in turn was probably a son of Thomas of 1643 and whose (i.e. John Curnow's) wife appears from the said will to have been also named Mary.
Again, if we knew for certain that the Mary B. and her sister who are named in Bawlden James' will were only very little children in 1610, then it would become quite likely on chronological grounds that the John of the 1657 will (which was proven in 1660) must be their father John. However if they were significantly older then there is more than enough time for there to have been an intervening generation of Baragwanaths born in the 47 years between these two wills. In other words, these two John Baragwanaths (John of 1610 and John of 1657-60) may not be one and the same man. Bawlden James does not spell out his relationship to many -- if not most -- of the beneficiaries in his will, and so for all we know to the contrary he and the John B. that he names could have been of the same generation. If this was the case, then the Mary B of 1610 would be too old to qualify as being also the Mary B. whose name was crossed out in the 1657 will.
There’s also a further chronological issue concerning the Baragwanath family that needs addressing if the identification of the John B. of 1657-60 with the John B. of 1610 is correct. William Baragwanath married Jane Curnow in 1696, and he has been allocated by several researchers into this family as being the son of the Richard Baragwanath who in turn was named in the said will of 1657 as a son of the testator John B. Now I do not know whether there is any evidence for this placing of William other than the onomastic argument involving the name of his (William's) second son, but, having said that, I do get the impression that the Baragwanaths were a numerically much smaller family than the Curnows, and hence I’m not too sure what the alternatives would be, or if indeed if there are any. What I would feel fairly confident about though is that William could not be the grandson of a man who had fathered a minimum of two children before 1610.* If William married at, say, aged 27 then he would have been born c. 1669. We have christenings of two of Richard's children, in 1664 and 1679, and clearly there were others, including perhaps William, in the interim: assuming a child was born every two years, then there is room for at least seven such, hence potentially nine all up. However this range of dates for Richard's children suggests to me that Richard himself must have rather young in 1657 when his father died. Hence if their placing as grandchildren of John B. of 1657 is correct, then I would have to question whether the John B of 1610 is the same man or of the same generation as the John B of 1657. * To use a modern comparison, I really don’t think that a man who married in the year of the Atlanta Olympics (1996) would have had (at least) two aunts born while Edward VII was still alive (i.e. pre-1910). Great-aunts, yes, certainly, but not aunts.
And if these two John B’s are not one and the same man, then the chronology of the Baragwanath family will not be such as to rule out the Thomas Curnow of 1588 as being one and the same man as the Thomas Curnow of 1643. In conclusion: I feel that the case for proposing that the Towednack Curnows came from the St Martin-St Keverne area is reasonably strong on presently available evidence. The family had certainly settled in Towednack by 1606, and presumably also had relatives in Lelant as of that date. I understand of course that you were not questioning the Kerrier connection per se, but rather the specific 1588 date that has been put forward. However given the foregoing alternative explanations for the references that you have described, I do not see that there is a definite chronological problem at present with attributing that christening to the Thomas of 1643.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Oct 15, 2007 18:05:52 GMT -5
Hi Trencrom, Quite a lot to digest here... I am going to take the Baragwanath argument first, and will put it in a separate post on the Towednack board. Will have to work on Curnow proper over the next few days... I must admit, you always force me to think.... (or force me to have a headache - not sure which... )
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 22, 2007 15:12:29 GMT -5
I, too, will be looking at this a little more closely. At the moment I will still argue very strongly that the Thomas Curnow of 1588 could not possibly be the progenitor of the Towednack Clan. But I will have to continue this, and the Baragwanath, discussion at some later time. Just so you know I am trying to keep in touch.
|
|
pmac
Noweth
Posts: 40
|
Post by pmac on Mar 5, 2012 23:46:31 GMT -5
* To use a modern comparison, I really don’t think that a man who married in the year of the Atlanta Olympics (1996) would have had (at least) two aunts born while Edward VII was still alive (i.e. pre-1910). Great-aunts, yes, certainly, but not aunts.
I have to make a point for consideration here : My Father was born in 1922 and my 2 Aunt's 1924 and 1926. I married in 2007 and my 1st child born 2008 so not so far fetched.
|
|
|
Post by lyndseycurnow on Jul 23, 2014 11:08:19 GMT -5
Thomas Curnow born 1588 in St.Keverne died 1643 in Towednack. Married 1612 in Towednack to Catherin. His father is also Thomas Curnow, married to Anes. Does anyone know the date of his father's birth?
|
|
|
Post by sue on Jul 23, 2014 14:33:04 GMT -5
Hi Lindsay Thomas Curnow of the 1643 Towednack will with 12 beneficiary children named plus 3 “cosins” (A loose term for relatives), only Antony being legible: although Thomas Curnow's wife Catherine is in the Towednack burial records 7 May 1635, I am quite unaware of any record having been found that identifies a marriage date or place to Thomas Curnow, or any other record that identifies her maiden name. May I ask where you have the marriage date of 1612 from? Myself - and others as you can see from preceding entries in this thread - I am yet to be convinced that this Thomas Curnow of the 1643 will was the chap baptized St Keverne 1588, having worked through the available information in records regarding his various sons as named in the 1643 will, as I am not happy that a chap born in 1588 would likely have been of an eligible marriage age to sire them, and there are other factors that mitigate against Thomas being born 1588).... I think there are differing theories out there amongst researchers as to the approximate date of birth for this apparent 1st Curnow in Towednack........... And if one were of the school of hypothetical thought that believed the 1588 St Keverne baptismal record, no parents named, was this Thomas Curnow, it is a leap to impute that the parents were Thomas Curnow & Anes. I have myself not found an evidenced link or put together sound supporting arguments. Have you? Sue
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 24, 2014 2:12:58 GMT -5
Welcome to the site Lyndsey ...... but I hope you are prepared to be flexible in your thinking about the Curnow families! And if you have read through all the previous posts about the Towednack family I also hope you are prepared to accept a little criticism. I have combined two quotes here with the second taken from your post about Jacob Curnow:- After reading these comments I need to ask - Are you trying to have a lend of us? or has someone else been having an extended tug on your leg?? Whatever the answer is I suspect you have been imbibing a little too much in the Ancestry Well! What documentary evidence do you have to support any of the 'facts' you have quoted here? I suspect the answer will be that you don't have any because except for the fact that there is a baptism record for 'a' Thomas Curnow at St Keverne in 1588 and there is a burial record in the Bishops Transcripts for Catherine wife of Thomas Curnow at Towednack in 1635 nothing else can be substantiated. You make the following claims:- 1. Thomas Curnow of Towednack is the Thomas baptized at St Keverne in 1588 2. The parents of Thomas were Thomas and Anes 3. The name of his wife was Catherine Care Painter 4. Catherine Care Painter was born at Towednack 23rd January 1588 5. The marriage took place at Towdnack in 1612 1. and 2. - The St Keverne Parish Register shows that 'Tho: the sonne of Curnow' was baptized - the names of the parents were not recorded! 3. - The only thing known is that Thomas Curnow's wife was named Catherin and that she was buried at Towednack in 1635 and to my knowledge there is nothing to link her to either the Care or the Painter families except for pure speculation. 5. and 6. - The earliest surviving Towednack Register begins with the baptism of Jane daughter of Robert Curnow October 8th, 1676. The earliest surviving Bishops Transcripts for Towednack are dated 1597-1602. The next surviving Bishops Transcript for Towednack is dated 1615 with no records surviving for the intervening years! If you have any evidence at all to support your claims I would be happy to hear it ............ but please do not say 'Ancestry Family Trees'!!!! I think perhaps you should have another read of the earlier posts on this subject and have another think about what you know based on the documented facts. Of some of Thomas Curnow's children we know nothing other than the fact they were named in his Will but we do have information on others that can help us form a reasonable timeline which then enables us to determine whether or not it might have been possible for Thomas to have been born/baptized as late as 1588. In his early post in this thread Trencrom indicated that Thomas Curnow was at Towednack by around 1606 and he also suggested that there 'must have been' other relatives involved in the relocation from St Keverne. Whilst it is possible my own opinion is that Thomas and Catherine were the sole Curnow family involved at Towednack and I think all Curnow events in that general area can be traced back to them - certainly events prior to the 19th Century. It is not dissimilar to my Trewhella family with the man I believe to by my direct Ancestor, James Trewhella, relocating to Towednack from St Erth sometime probably during the period 1608 to 1615. CT
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Aug 8, 2014 5:35:17 GMT -5
I'm not sure if all Curnow events in Towednack can be presently traced back to Thomas and Catherine. I myself am not persuaded on the basis of the previous discussions, which of course I was a part of,that there is any serious problem with the St Keverne Thomas of 1588 being the same person as the Thomas of the 1643 will. However I don't know of any contemporary document that gives us a date for his marriage, and I don't think the maiden name of his wife Catherine is known. Personally I doubt that she was a Painter, however there was a subsequent Curnow-Painter marriage in the generation following Thomas.
|
|
|
Post by hahahwp on Jun 1, 2018 2:14:40 GMT -5
Hello
I am a novice. Had my free trial on ancestory (procrastinatin as I had an horrendous workload at the time) and here I am addicted. All roads seemed to lead to Cornwall. However, as you have all pointed out there were serious inconsistencies on the site and dramatic name changes, that, conveniently, created a little touch of nobility for the descents. so I came here to look for other information and hopefully the right answers. It appears that I have the answer that sadly there is no answer yet. Off to see what I can find out about the Treliving family now!
Thanks for all the detailed analysis above. Is there a central place in Cornwall or a good place to visit to physically see any of this evidence?
|
|
|
Post by londoner on Jun 1, 2018 3:15:06 GMT -5
Cornwall Record Office in Truro is the place to start, but be aware that they will be closing this Autumn to prepare for the move to new purpose built praises at Kresen Kernow in Redruth. If you plan a visit it is well worthwhile to check the online catalogue and preorder any wills etc that you want to look at. They will then have them ready for you.
|
|
|
Post by rogerC41 on Aug 9, 2018 20:02:54 GMT -5
Back many years (c.1986) when I first became interested in my great-greats the burning question was whether Thomas (d.1643 Towednack) was the same person as Thomas(b.1588 St Martin in Meneage).
Then most thought YES. Today even more think so. Being a great believer in An gwyr erbyn an bys (though not sure how it translates) I am not fully convinced. So what to do? Short of a miraculous find, "the paper trail" is worked out. It seems to me the answer lies in Y-DNA.
I am in contact with 2 other Curnows with Y-DNA results (both descended from Thomas) and am surprised there are differences though we are only 8 generations apart. I wonder are there others out there who would like to link with us.
Especially I wonder if there is someone who by traditional genealogical methods is not descended from Thomas but rather from John (d.1606? St Martin Meneage).
I have put a similar post under the DNA thread on this board.
roger
|
|