|
Post by trencrom on Aug 10, 2018 4:27:12 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 Curnow s 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. rogerWhile Y-DNA will show which Curnow lines are related somehow on the direct male line, I don't think that it will answer any doubts that some have about whether Thomas of Towednack and Thomas of St Keverne are one and the same person. If you could compare the Y-DNA of someone proven to be descended in the direct male line from Thomas of Towednack with that of someone proven to be descended in the direct male line from John of St Martin, that might well show a family connection (and I personally believe that it would), thereby proving that there was some sort of relationship and common ancestry on the direct male line, but it would not identify exactly how Thomas of Towednack and John of St Martin were related. A Curnow male from that time would, after all, have the same Y-DNA as his son, his brother's son, his father's brother's son and grandson, and so on. Trencrom
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Aug 10, 2018 6:24:39 GMT -5
In one of your statements in your current posts on this statement you say that the 'majority' of people believe Thomas Curnow of Towednack (d.1643) and Thomas Curnow bp. 1588 at St Keverne are one and the same person. My own opinion of this 'general acceptance' is that it is rather nonsensical and based purely on the fact that apart from Thomas Curnow's own son (as named in his Will) there is only one earlier Thomas recorded and that is the baptism of 1588. In fact, if people were to take more notice of the Will of Thomas Curnow and the available records in the Towednack area to piece together his family I think a picture forms that shows it would be just about impossible for the two Thomas Curnows to be the same person! Take for instance the 1630 marriage at Towednack for Thomas Curnow and Joan Martin. I think it is accepted that this is most likely the son Thomas named in the will of Thomas Curnow the elder and at the time of marriage he was probably at least 20 years old and very likely older - he therefore had to have been born before 1610. By my reading of the Will and taking into account the 1641 Protestation returns I believe there are at least three children born before Thomas. We also know from the Will that there was a son named Henry and I suspect he is one of the two Henry Curnows at Lelant in 1641. I am also of the opinion that the two Henrys are probably father and son which means the younger had to be born before 1623 and his father therefore much closer to or before 1600. If indeed the elder is the son of Thomas Curnow of Towednack then Thomas would have to have been born before 1680 and thus certainly could not possibly be the child at St Keverne in 1588. The one flaw in my argument there is that the baptism of Thomas may have been delayed. But to delay a baptism by 8-10 years or more at that time I should think would have been extremely unlikely. It certainly did happen during the 19th Century but I don't have any confirmed instances prior to that. Thomas did mention a cousin Anthony in his Will and that 'could' be the son of John and Marie Curnow baptized at St Martin in Meneage in 1588. But remember that the term 'cousin' in those days could mean an uncle or a nephew or any other relative for that matter - it did not have the same literal meaning that we know today. Another interesting document is abstracted and transcribed as follows:- JOHN CURNOW, of St. Martin (in Meneage)
9 January 1606 Admon granted to THOMAS CURNOW, brother. Bondsmen: THOMAS CURNOW, husbandman, of Towednack; JAMES CALINSOW, husbandman, of Lelant.
Inventory taken 5 January 1606 by OLVER. EDWARD, JOHN EDWARD, SYMON WILLA., WILLIA. CALENSO, GEORGE CHINHALE, MICHELL CURNOW & others. ..........
In summary, my opinion is that Thomas Curnow of Towednack and the Thomas Curnow baptized at St Keverne in 1588 are almost certainly NOT one and the same man and that more notice should be taken of the fact that most of the records that could prove the issue one way or another no longer exist - in particular the early registers of Towednack for which only some scattered Bishops Transcripts remain. CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Aug 10, 2018 6:34:34 GMT -5
Reading Trencrom's response and then looking at one of Roger's notes again I picked up on this:-
I had missed that quote in my original reading of the posts but it offers me something else to put to you after checking my database again. I believe it very likely that this John is the same man whose Admon. was granted in 1606 to his 'brother Thomas Curnow, husbandman, of Towednack'. If I am correct then this is the John who married Marie Tregreth at St Martin in Meneage in 1584 and had six known children including Anthony.
John Curnow was buried at Gwithian 4th January 1606(OS):-
CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Aug 10, 2018 8:34:56 GMT -5
Take Two!!! - Just spent 10 minutes on a post only to lose it when I hit the send button because the $^*^&$ internet connection appears to have dropped out ………….. AGAIN!!
Okay - I was posting to say that there is the possibility that Thomas Curnow may have been married twice. As per his Will he have two sons named John - referred to in that Will as 'John the elder' and 'John the younger'. Not unheard of to have two children with the same name but not common either.
Of the sons named John I have the elder married in 1638 at Gulval to Johannan Vibert and have been working on a potential birth sometime around 1613. The younger John appears to have married Mary Baragwanath as per the Will of her father John Baragwanath in 1660. As he did not sign the 1641 Protestation Returns I have his birth as not before 1623.
The fact that there were two sons named John and that of six daughters named in his Will (Mary, Jane, Margaret, Ann, Wilmot and Thomasin) not one was named Catherine would suggest the possibility that Catherine may have been at least a second wife.
CT
|
|
|
Post by rogerC41 on Oct 8, 2018 16:39:00 GMT -5
Hi CT
Your post of Aug 10th wonders about the absence of a daughter named Catherine to Thomas (d.1643) and uses this to suggest Thomas's marriage to Catherine might be a second marriage.
If we are going to rely on traditional naming patterns should this not promote Thomas ( 1630 married Joan Martin ) to the position of eldest son of Thomas d1643 ? There may be exceptions, but naming the first son after the father was certainly a strong tradition amongst Curnow of that period.
roger
|
|
|
Post by rogerC41 on Oct 8, 2018 17:29:03 GMT -5
Hi Trencom et al, Back in August in response to my post suggesting the definitive linking of Thomas (d.1643) to (Thomas b. 1588 St Martin in Meneage) might be possible via Y-DNA comparisons you wrote: A Curnow male from that time would, after all, have the same Y-DNA as his son, his brother's son, his father's brother's son and grandson, and so on.This is only sort of correct: a comparison of my Y-DNA test results, with a "cousin's" (we have the same Curnow 7G grand parent) shows 7 points of difference. So I would expect a comparison of me with a descendant of John (St Martin in Meneage) to show 10 to 15 points of difference. Less than 10 would argue strongly for Thomas d.1643 and Thomas b. 1588 to be the same person; greater than 15 would argue for he/them to be two people. roger"points of difference" is not a technical term, but this is not the DNA thread.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 9, 2018 1:15:51 GMT -5
That is a hypothetical - in fact we have no information on Catherine at all except for the 1635 burial naming her as 'wife of Thomas'. That she was the mother of any of the children of Thomas Curnow is also not known as the only surviving baptism record (Matthew 1619) mentions only Thomas Curnow as the father. With no Catherine amongst the daughters named in his Will it is therefore possible that Catherine was not the first wife of Thomas and possibly not the mother of any of his children. On the other hand it is also possible there was a daughter name Catherine who did not survive. We do know from his Will that Thomas Curnow had a large family and with the one surviving baptism record that family included 12 known children with two of those being named John. The order of children named in the Will are:- Sons - Henry, John the elder, John the younger and later sons Thomas and Robert named as executors Daughters - Mary, Jane, Margaret, Ann, Wilmot, Thomasin. He also named two Curnow cousins - one whose forename is torn away and the other being Anthonie. There is nothing to tell us what order the sons were born and it does not necessarily follow that those named as Executors would be the eldest. They could in fact have been the youngest but it is more likely they Thomas and Robert were deemed the most appropriate at the time. Naming patterns - It did not always follow that the first son was named for his father and the second for his grandfather (same scenario for daughters) but, providing there were enough sons, the names of the father and grandfather were generally used. I have at least one example where the first son in a Trewhella family in the 1680s was named William and the daughter named Mary even those tow names had NEVER been used in that particular family beforehand. Those two children were actually named for the reigning King and Queen at the time - William of Orange and his wife Mary! Another factor to consider if you really want to bring naming patterns into the discussion is that we DO NOT KNOW who the father of Thomas Curnow was! For those who insist on the Thomas baptized in 1588 as being our man from Towednack I need to point out that neither parent is named in the record!! That record follows the baptism of Jo: son of Jo: Nicholl on 24th November and simply reads . So the father of Thomas might have been a Henry Curnow which might explain son Henry being named first in Thomas Curnow's Will. On the other hand Thomas had two living sons named John so could he have been the son of a John Curnow - or was the reason something to do with his brother John who died in 1606? Of course Thomas may have been named after his own father which would the pose more queries about the naming of other sons. And then we also know that Robert and, to a lesser extent, Matthew later became 'favorite' Curnow names. CT
|
|
|
Post by rogerC41 on Oct 9, 2018 4:42:03 GMT -5
Hi All, particularly Zenobia.
The will of Thomas d.1643 contains, inter alia, two bequests
parish of ________ 3 sh. 4 d. parish of Towednack 3 sh. 4 d..
It occurs to me, as it has no doubt to others, that if we knew the name of the dash parish we might have further evidence for this Thomas being the Thomas b. 1588, St Martins in Meneage.
This gives rise to a series of questions. 1. (a.) Is the dash parish dashed because the will has a piece torn from it? or (b.) because it is illegible? or (c.) because it is too faint to read. If (c.) has any attempt been made to read it under special lighting conditions?
2. Is there any likelihood that a record of parish incomes for St Martins in Meneage or Ludgvan for the year 1643 might still exist?
roger
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 9, 2018 6:57:03 GMT -5
My first comment here is in way of a correction - Thomas Curnow of 1588 was batpsied at ST KEVERNE and not, as you seem to imply, St Martin in Meneage. However the above tells me that you have not seen a copy of the original Will (or an image of it) for yourself. The Will is available in a collection on FamilySearch but to answer the question and eliminate some of the series of questions above I can tell you that much of the right hand edge of the page is gone. The left hand side of the page is intact and the line in question is probably complete but for one word or, perhaps, two. It reads as follows:- To see a copy of the Will for yourself use this link:- www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-62PR-5W?i=939&cat=329778That should show you the Will itself. The previous image should give you the image of the wrapper label and the two images after should give another scan of the Will and then a copy of the Inventory. In my previous readings of this Will I had not noticed that the first Parish apparently begins with 'C'. It is clearly not 'S' which would seem to eliminate St Keverne and St Martin but if it refers to a Parish on the Lizard Peninsula then it could only be Cury with Constantine a possibility being immediately north of St Martin in Meneage. On the other hand - could this possibly bring perhaps Crowan or Camborne into the picture? CT
|
|
|
Post by londoner on Oct 11, 2018 2:31:46 GMT -5
I just had a look at that will. The letter in question is nothing like the C in either Curnow or Christian . I can't see any letter in the will that looks like it. The dot under the curve might indicate that it is an abbreviation. Sorry to be unhelpful!
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 11, 2018 3:44:23 GMT -5
Quite right Londoner and my apologies. Later on after having posted that message something began niggling at me about just that point but I was too tired then to do anything more about it. Usually in a case like that I would check the document for other similar characters to verify what I was thinking but unfortunately I neglected to do so in this instance. But even so, as the handwriting leading up to this indicates that it is to be the start of a parish name then to my eyes it can be only a 'C'. I don't see the 'dot under the curve' but I do see a mark that could be the upper part of the second letter in the word.
I guess the bottom line is that there is now way of knowing just what the name of the Parish was although if that odd character is indeed the first part of the Parish name then it is not an 'S' either which would seem to rule out St Keverne, St Martin etc.
CT
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Oct 11, 2018 23:09:22 GMT -5
In relation to previous posts about Thomas' wife Catherine, and whether or not he had a daughter with that name: I agree with CT that technically we don't know that Catherine was the mother of any of Thomas' children, since we don't have a will for her and we don't have christening records for Thomas' children which identify her as being their mother. We don't know though that she wasn't their mother, either. However for reasons already stated I am inclined to agree with the suggestion that two living sons named John would suggest that Thomas married twice and had a son John by each wife. If so, then Catherine is evidently the final wife since Thomas' will does not name a wife.
On the issue of the name of the lost parish name in the will, why I can see why someone looking at it might think that it starts with the letter "C", I am not myself persuaded that it is, and for these considerations: 1. It looks if anything a little too small compared to the rest of the text to be a full capital letter. 2. My recollection is that capital "C" looked a bit different back then to a modern "C". A comparison within the will itself with the word "cosen" five lines further down, and the name "Cornow" at the start of both the sixth and seventh lines, also illustrates this. 3. It may only be the initial stroke of an otherwise lost letter, in which case it could be part of any one of a number of letters. 4. I am not sure that we can rule a name like St Martin out, especially if it was not invariable practice to include the "St" part when writing out the parish name. Could this be the initial stroke of, for example, a capital letter "M"? (the letter "m" in lower case IS differently written in this will, I know).
Trencrom
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 12, 2018 0:57:20 GMT -5
Thanks for your input on this one Trencrom - it seems we are somewhere on the same page. I don't believe this will be a capitol 'M' to be honest but if it were then it would also bring Mawgan in Meneage into the picture. However, after another look at this Will and a reasonably even-paced scan of each line I have another possibility that does have something almost comparable on the page. This suggestion also takes up on Trencrom's comment regarding the use of the prefix 'St'. I would now offer the possibility that this letter might conceivably be an 'A'. There are several examples of a capitol 'A' in the document including the word 'Almighty' and the naming of daughter 'Ann'. Each example starts in very roughly the same manner is the partial letter we are discussing and each example is different in the spacing between the left upstroke and right downstroke of the letter itself. Also noticeable in at least one example is that the upstroke at left is much less bold than the downstroke on the right. Taking that into account could it be possible that when writing the name of the parish part of that first letter was not completed? The 'dot' at right could form part of the remainder of an 'A'. If 'A' is the answer then we would be looking at St Anthony in Meneage which I think was sometimes referred to simply as 'Anthony'. The Parishes under discussion are mostly on the Lizard Peninsula so the argument is, to a point, a moot one and still the best evidence we have to work from is the Will of Thomas Curnow himself and the Admon. of his brother John in 1606. Remember that Administration of the estate of John Cournowe of Martin in Meneage was granted to his brother Thomas Cornowe of Towednack in 1606. In 1643 Thomas Curnow mentioned a 'cosin' Anthony Curnow and this Anthony is very possibly actually his 'nephew' and son of brother John. This Anthony Curnow was baptized at St Martin in Meneage in 1588 ….. he is also the ONLY Anthony Curnow that I have any record of. CT
|
|
|
Post by boatbuilder on Jun 7, 2020 8:44:37 GMT -5
I'm new to all this , fascinating stuff especially as a Curnow by birth ( adopted ) I by chance work with a Baragwanath at my Richmond boatyard . Needless to say we agree on very little; History does have a habit of repeating itself ! I hope to contribute more Boatbuilder Mark .
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jun 7, 2020 10:52:07 GMT -5
Welcome to the site Mark - sounds like you have an interesting workplace! CT
|
|