|
Post by trencrom on Jul 9, 2007 22:38:18 GMT -5
As this is an earlier generation of the family I decided to start a separate thread for the same.
John Michell son of George must have been named after his maternal grandfather, not the paternal one. This is because the Zennor BTs record George's christening, on 25/12/1619, and the father's name as Robert. I am assuming that this is the same Robert Michell who appears in a deposition described in Kathie's website as being aged 45 years in 1628. He would therefore have been about 36 when George was born.
Robert also appears as a witness to the will of John Pormeare of Zennor in 1639, and helped compile the inventory of his estate. In 1641 Robert Michell was among the 83 men over 18 years of age at Zennor who each signed the Protestation Return. Robert also helped compile the inventory of the will of John Bussy of Zennor in September 1648.
(I am taking it that this is the same man in each case.)
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 10, 2007 8:07:43 GMT -5
And, once again, you have provided another BT entry that I did not have. And what you are portraying here makes a lot of sense now that a few extra pieces are falling into the puzzle. I do have copies of some of the Wills you mention so that will help as I try to 're-master' the scenario of 'the Michell Family of Towednack'. I must say also that it has been a smart move to separate George into a new thread for the moment as it should, hopefully, make things a little easier to follow. Now, I will try to do a bit of this tonight but no promises for a couple of reasons. 1. I have to be out reasonably early tomorrow to pick up the supplies for the Pub. (or the Boss and Patrons might do nasty things to me.) 2. I see you have now added a Phillips thread which I now need to look at. One might get the impression you have been 'setting me up' a little the way things have been going. ;D I, hopefully, have a good two days completely free after tomorrow so I will be looking forward to trying to sort out quite a few things for you and also for some others on the site who are probably awaiting information/feedback. Must say, though, that it is really good to be getting back into the Zennor/Towednack side of things with some of this new information. I had come to a few 'dead ends' that I decided to leave alone for a while in the hope that other research might provide some clues for me. Guess What! - that seems to be what is happening. Talk to you on the Phillips thread.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jul 11, 2007 4:39:09 GMT -5
A couple of further things to share:
1. Cornish terrier, you have allocated a daughter named "Luce" to George, and if I understood your earlier post on the James Michell thread aright you were wondering where to place John Michell as a consequence. Am I right in thinking that this is on account of the reference in Rob Michell's 1703 will to his "sister Luce"?
If so, I have an alternative explanation for you to consider
John Michell died about six years earlier in 1697. In his will he mentions his wife "Luce" and some named kids.
Robert leaves bequests to his relations but not to John, for (of course) John was dead. But John left a surviving wife and children who Robert could have still left a bequest to.
Therefore, could the Luce of 1703 be the widow of John and sister in-law to Robert the testator, as distinct from a sister?
I see in the will of 1703 the bequests are given thus: brother George, sister Margaret French, "brother John Hary", "sister Luce" , "cosen" James who gets the "Anuell" (another word I could not make out previously, since Robert is a blacksmith this must be his anvil) , sister Elizabeth, 'cosen" Thomas Treve, "cosen" John Treve, & sister Emblen.
"Brother John Hary" is obviously not a brother to Robert, but must be a brother-in-law. I am not immediately aware of a Harry-Michell marriage but one is certainly not impossible given the patchy records we have today and that fact that Harrys were at that time a Morvah family.
However the point I really want to make here is that if "brother" is here being used for "brother-in-law": then "sister" immediately below it could also be interpreted as "sister-in-law".
That may resolve the identity of Luce. What are your views?
Incidentally there is a christening of a Luce Michell, on 22/4/1635, but she is named as a daughter of a Ralph Michell and Margaret his wife. Not suggesting though that this is the same Luce as John's wife.
2. "Sister Elizabeth" though could well be a sister to Robert, not sure either one way or the other, but the possibility is perhaps made more likely by the fact that the wife of Robert Michell, father of George who married Emlin, was also named Elizabeth. This iinformation comes from the BTs for 1625, which record the christening of their daughter Margaret, no doubt the same Margaret who married French.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 11, 2007 14:02:23 GMT -5
Am going to have to do some searching through all my Michell stuff to 'confidently' answer some of this but .... You now mention a baptism for Margaret Michell from the 1625 BT's You then indicate that you think that she is the same girl who married 'French'. I do think this highly unlikely as the birth of Margaret is now (to my mind) put one generation back. From P&T:- 30th January 1673 Thomas French m. Margaret Michell I have long considered that it was their daughter Margaret who married John GRENFIELD at St Just in 1713. I will need to look further into things and get my mind organised around what information I have. Matthew PHILLIPS mentioned a Robert PHILLIPS in his Will of 1628. In a Deposition relating to this Will Robert MICHELL had his age recorded as 45. My, so far, interpretations of all information suggest that the above Robert wa probably son of Thomas MICHELL who left a Will at MORVAH in 1621. (Ref PM.) This Will named sons Robert, George,Israel and daughters Jennet PERRY and Abigayl. Looks like a few of my 'old ideas' might be coming to fruition. Going to close this note now as I have a couple more to look at and I am finding that Sunday's 'outing' (belated Pub Christmas Drinks) is taking it's toll. Will definitely try to take a better look at this tomorrow ...............
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jul 11, 2007 22:33:41 GMT -5
Cornish terrier, you are right about Margaret.
We therefore have two Margarets: Margaret, daughter of Robert, christened 1625, and Her niece Margaret, daughter of George, who married French in 1673. I agree re Robert being a son of Thomas. I have a copy of the latter's will which I have posted separately about.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 13, 2007 1:30:52 GMT -5
Coming to the end of an extremely long session so will try and keep this response short and simple. The points about Luce Michell are extremely valid and could help solve a few problems. But the mention of an earlier Luce Michell also needs to be taken into consideration when looking at the whole picture. Nevertheless - I should have picked up on your point regarding 'sister' when it is quite plain that 'brother' is used for the brother-in-law. Right - time to shut down for a few hours and recuperate.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 19, 2007 12:49:17 GMT -5
I have now found the reason for my errors in deciphering information from the 1703/4 Will of Robert Michell. I have been working from an abstract provided many years ago and so have not seen the Will myself. It now seems that this abstract is in error and I must defer to your own work here which is starting to clear the picture somewhat. One point to make is that 'my source' provided the names 'brother James' and also 'cosen James Michell' which is interesting and I would like to have clarified please. Another interesting point that requires some clarification - the 1697 Will of John Michell was also transcribed/abstracted by someone else and the name of John's wife was originally given to me as 'JANE'. It is obvious that I have had a correction since that time as I have the name recorded as 'LUCE' in my database. Whilst having just mentioned LUCE again I have something else to offer for discussion and I wonder if, again, we might have a PHILLIPS connection and, possibly, a BERRIMAN connection involved. 2nd October 1641 [___] Phillip, junr., m. LUCRECE BERRIMAN at Zennor Might this couple have had a daughter LUCE who later married JOHN MICHELL. As I have it the names of the children mentioned in John Michell's 1697/8 Will were JOHN, GEORGE and ELIZABETH which certainly fits with John being son of George. Equally, though, John may have been son of another John which might therefore mean that George was named for Luce's father. I am, however, thinking more now along the lines that this John was, indeed, the son of George. We still have the problem of 'brother JOHN HARY' but I will try to work through this Will one bequest at a time. Brother George is no problem and is most likely the man who married Elizabeth Bennetts at Zennor in 1695. Sister Margaret FRENCH is also no problem and I have found baptisms for three 'probable' children at St Just - Mary bp. 1 Aug 1675, Thomas bp. 16 Dec 1677 (d. 27 Jan 1678) and GEORGE bp. 16 Mar 1679 - all from IGI so I would be wary of the dates. (NOTE THAT ROBERT DOES NOT MENTION ANY CHILDREN OF HIS SIBLINGS but please note the following.) "brother John HARY" suggests a deceased sister. (NO children mentioned.) "sister LUCE" now suggests a deceased brother. (i.e. John) (NO children mentioned.) "cosen" JAMES - I am now suspecting that he 'may be' an orphaned nephew. Sister Elizabeth - is suggestive of a spinster sister and I would suggest it was not she who married John HARY. "cosen" Thomas Treve and "cosen" John Treve - these two become very interesting and may help solve part of the problem. JONE MICHELL m. THOMAS TREAVE at Zennor in 1681 yet neither are mentioned in Robert Michell's Will which suggests, given the previous bequests, that both may be deceased. I found a baptism at St Buryan for JOHN s/o THOMAS TREEVE 29th July 1688. I then found a burial for THOMAS TREEVE 15th February 1689 at St Buryan. So far I cannot find a burial for JONE but it did occur to me that, if the above Burial was that of her husband, then she may have later married a John HARRY. Cannot yet find evidence of that but ..... Sister Emblen is also no problem as I believe she was named as executrix and it is probably she who was buried at Zennor in 1722. Will now take a further look at the 'sister Elizabeth' scenario provided in your note and see if anything further comes to notice. Look forward to responses regarding this note.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jul 20, 2007 4:14:28 GMT -5
I have now found the reason for my errors in deciphering information from the 1703/4 Will of Robert Michell. I have been working from an abstract provided many years ago and so have not seen the Will myself.. I have a copy of the will One point to make is that 'my source' provided the names 'brother James' and also 'cosen James Michell' which is interesting and I would like to have clarified please... Go back to the James Michell d. 1734 thread. I have covered this will there. Another interesting point that requires some clarification - the 1697 Will of John Michell was also transcribed/abstracted by someone else and the name of John's wife was originally given to me as 'JANE'. It is obvious that I have had a correction since that time as I have the name recorded as 'LUCE' in my database. .. I have this will too. It is Luce. [quote author=ianjtrewhella board=zennor thread=1184038698 post=1184867357Whilst having just mentioned LUCE again I have something else to offer for discussion and I wonder if, again, we might have a PHILLIPS connection and, possibly, a BERRIMAN connection involved. 2nd October 1641 [___] Phillip, junr., m. LUCRECE BERRIMAN at Zennor Might this couple have had a daughter LUCE who later married JOHN MICHELL. ..[/quote] At first glance quite possible, but there may be others with this given name also. You would need to look at all the Luces before drawing any conclusions I am, however, thinking more now along the lines that this John was, indeed, the son of George. .. That is my present view as well. "brother John HARY" suggests a deceased sister. (NO children mentioned.).. Possible and I have previously suggested that JH is a brother-in-law to Robert. I would like to see the marriage record though before drawing any firm conclusions, in case he is a brother-in-law on the wife's side. JAMES - I am now suspecting that he 'may be' an orphaned nephew. .. Absolutely not. Again, check the James Michell thread where this is covered. Sister Elizabeth - is suggestive of a spinster sister and I would suggest it was not she who married John HARY. .. No -- the will itself suggests nothing of the kind. She could just as easily be a widow. We are not told her status.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 20, 2007 11:57:30 GMT -5
Will re-check the James Michell thread in just a moment. Firstly, though, thanks again for your appraisal of my thoughts - it is healthy to have this 'friendly banter'. Lucrece Berriman was thrown in to give us something more to consider and, at this stage, it is merely a suggested possibility. Re John HARY - the possibility of him being involved on John's wife's side had escaped me. Yes, he could actually be the brother of Luce. From IGI:- Luce d/o William HARRY bp. St Ives 15 Jul 1660 bu. St Ives 22 Sep 1663 The name is recorded as 'Lucee' in John Tanner's Transcript of St Ives Burials. But this does open up the possibility that John Michell's wife was a later born sister of the above. ELIZABETH - you have given me cause to take another look at her in the general scheme of the Will. I think we have her in this family solely because of her mention in the Will of Robert Michell in 1703/4 and, therefore, have no secondary evidence about her. At the risk of possible embarrassment I will complete this note before going to look at the James Michell thread again - just in case I were to lose this. If I need to I will post an amended note about my thoughts here. OK - From our recent discussions we know that brother John is deceased and have decided on the probability that LUCE was his wife. We also now know that brother James is deceased and it also appears that sister Jone is deceased. And sister EMBLEN is still living and also, apparently, a spinster. My reading of this now is that Robert Michell has used some sort of order in his bequests, apart from brother George and sister Margaret. He has named his only living brother, George, first in his Will (even though it is almost certain he was younger than Margaret based on previous Wills). Then named is 'sister MARGARET FRENCH' who is obviously still living. Next is 'brother JOHN HARY' who is still an 'unknown quantity' but could possibly be a brother to LUCE. He is followed by 'sister LUCE' There follows 'cosen JAMES MICHELL' who is now all but proved to be a nephew. THEN we have 'sister ELIZABETH'. Penultimately we have 'cosens THOMAS TREVE & JOHN TREVE' Finally is his 'blood' sister EMBLEN who is named executrix. My opinion now (omitting George, Margaret and Emblen for the moment) is that the remaining bequests very likely reflect a birth order for Robert's deceased siblings. In November 1654 JOHN PHILLIPS named John, Margaret and Emblen MICHELL as grandchildren which makes those three the eldest. All other children of this family were, therefore, born after that Will was made. (I will leave JOHN HARY as an unknown quantity for the moment) It now follows that:- LUCE was the widow of the eldest son JOHN. JAMES was the son of deceased brother JAMES. ELIZABETH WAS THE WIDOW OF DECEASED BROTHER JAMES! THOMAS & JOHN TREVE were the sons of deceased sister JONE. ;D It is possible that JOHN HARY may be accounted for if there was another, as yet unknown, deceased sister. But that cannot yet be proved because the only information we have, at the moment, is that from Robert Michell's 1703 Will. The only other apparent option is, as discussed above, that he was the brother of LUCE. Will leave that with you while I take another look at the James Michell thread and 'see how much embarrassment I need to shed'.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 20, 2007 13:48:01 GMT -5
Seem to have made a couple of errors but, after re-reading the James Michell thread I think I can now offer more. One problem was regarding the 'three known children' born before 1654 where I quoted the Will of John PHILLIPS. That Will actually mentioned his grandson JOHN and three grandaughters (unnamed). I now know that EMBLEN could not have been one of them (as she was baptised in 1667) unless there was an earlier child of the same name. (And this is still possible ) In fact, it is very possible as I have reasonably conclusive evidence in a family where there were at least three children of the same name baptised. One of those children was named in a Will but died soon after the Testator and it then seemed the 'replacements' were named in order to keep the 'bequest' or 'inheritance' alive. We know JOHN was one of the children MARGARET is more than likely one of the three daughters given she married in 1674. It now appears that JONE is another of those daughters. LUCE has now been identified as, most likely, the widow of JOHN. ELIZABETH has been discussed but I will add further. EMBLEN appears to have remained single and has been mentioned above. I now have to seriously consider that JOHN HARY was not necessarily a brother to LUCE as espoused in my previous but rather that he was the 'widowed husband' of another sister to Robert Michell. I believe this now makes more sense. NOTES:- George, Margaret and Emblin are named in Robert's Will as still living. Margaret is named as Margaret FRENCH. Luce is named as 'sister' but is now obviously the widow of John. ELIZABETH I will return to. JAMES I will return to. "cosens THOMAS & JOHN TREVE" are mentioned. "cosen JAMES MICHELL" is mentioned. These last are the only children of any sibling to be mentioned by Robert Michell and indicates to me that, certainly in the case of TREVE, both parents are deceased. We know that John and Luce had children but they were not mentioned - Luce was still living. We know that Thomas and Margaret FRENCH had children who were not mentioned - Margaret, at least, was still living. I do not know, as yet, whether George had children but, if he did, they were not mentioned - George still living. ELIZABETH and JAMES - I now do have a problem here. IF Elizabeth was a 'blood' sister to Robert then I firmly believe now that she was either unmarried or had married another MICHELL. In the latter case, if widowed, I think she may have been identified as such. This now does leave the possibility that she was 'widow' of James as I mentioned in my last. The bequest to "cosen" James Michell indicates to me that his father is already deceased. 'sister' Elizabeth is named immediately afterwards which suggests that, as in the case of Luce, she was likely the 'widow' of Robert's brother James. And here is where the problem really begins. Trencrom has shown that there was a James baptised as son of George Michell at Zennor in 1665 It has also been shown that 'a' James Michell died Intestate in 1734 and administration was granted to his son of the same name. This son then left a Will in 1738 naming sisters Hannah, Anne and Margaret. Of these names only Margaret was used in the family of George and Emlin Michell and it was not an uncommon name. HANNAH is mentioned in the 1724 Will of another Robert Michell as a 'cousin' but this Robert is, I believe, further removed than first cousin to the 1703 Testator. My thinking here is that we have a problem with the JAMES MICHELL side of things. As I have written, the Will of Robert Michell in 1703 (to me) suggests that his brother James was deceased and hence my theory that 'sister Elizabeth' may have been his widow. I am of the opinion that the 'cosen James Michell' mentioned in this Will was not the son of Robert's brother given that brother James was not mentioned in Robert's Will. Need to work out who he may have been though. (If I am correct)
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 22, 2007 16:40:26 GMT -5
This has become 'cross-threaded' between this thread and the James Michell 1734 thread. But to keep some sort of flow going for the moment I will keep my comments here. I am still quite concerned about the mention of 'cosen James MICHELL' in the 1703 Will of Robert MICHELL. At the time Robert wrote his Will 'cosen' James was 'not yet 20' and he was bequeathed an Anvil. Mention was made that James 'father' may have the use of this Anvil until James reached the age of 20. Some points may be repeated here from earlier messages however ... As Robert Michell's Will was written in 1703 it is obvious that 'cosen' James was born sometime after 1683. It is known that Robert had a brother James (bp. Zennor 1664/5) and it has been mentioned in throughtout this discussion that he has been thought to be the father of the younger James. I have reason to dispute that which I will now try to explain (at the risk of repetition). 1. One abstract of Robert Michell's Will suggested mention of 'brother James'. 2. All other 'outlines' of this Will, so far, make NO MENTION of brother James. 3. Consistent is the mention of 'cosen James Michell'. 4. Other 'cosens' have been mentioned in this Will who are actually nephews of Robert. 5. The bequest to 'cosen James' indicates that his father is still living as he may have use of the 'anvil' until James reach the age of 20. Question - If 'cosen James' was the son of James and, therefore, nephew of the Testator, then why was his father not actually named in the Will? It, to me, seems quite out of context unless Robert and his brother had 'fallen out'. But - if that were the case then it would seem strange that the elder James might 'have use of' the Anvil bequested to his son. Further with the context of the Will of Robert is the order and manner in which he made his bequests. It is now shown that 'brother John HARY' is not a 'brother' but probably a brother-in-law. 'sister LUCE' is now known to be probably the widow of Robert's elder brother John who died about 1698. 'sister ELIZABETH' is named amongst those who are either widowed kin or nephews/neices of widowed siblings of Robert. This indicates to me that 'sister ELIZABETH' is herself a widow and was, probably, the wife of Robert's brother JAMES. A couple of possibilities to consider:- As the 'anvil' was available for use by the father of 'cosen James' until he turns 20 there is only one other living brother who could have been his father - GEORGE who I think is probably the man who married Elizabeth BENNETTS at Zennor in 1695 and for whom I have no recorded children. In this Will the term 'cosen' seems mostly to mean nephew/neice relationship which would indicate that young James was a nephew. However I have seen numerous Wills where a similar term has been used to describe relatives of varying status - nephew, cousin, uncle etc. so this must be considered. Robert Michell was a Blacksmith, hence the bequest of the 'anvil', and it seems obvious that young James and his father were of that same trade (James at least learning it). (It may be worthwhile checking other information to see what other Blacksmiths in the area were Michells at the time ) A further point here is, again as has been discussed, the Admon. and Will of James (1734) and James (1738) who are noted to be father and son. Whilst the 1734 Admon. only indicates son James it is the 1738 Will of the younger James that is interesting - especially when some other discussed Wills on this thread are brought into play. In 1738 the younger James did not mention a wife and also mentioned no children. He did mention sister Anne with her daughters Anne and Sarah (was Anne married - and to whom?), sister Margaret and sister Hannah. Apart from Margaret, none of these names are consistent with the family of Robert Michell and his siblings. The name Hannah is mentioned in at least two other Wills of the Michell family which are not yet directly or proved connections to this particular Robert Michell. Will leave these comments for now - time a quick check of other threads and then retire for a few hours sleep before work. All input welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 22, 2007 17:34:30 GMT -5
Neglected to mention in my last (and do not yet know if it has any real relevence.)
5th October 1695 James MICHELL m. Grace TREGEAR at St Just in Penwith
9th August 1696 MARGARET d/o James and Grace bp. St Just in Penwith
PHILLACK
31st July 1692 bp. Elinor MICHELL d/o JAMES & HANNAH 21st April 1695 bp. James MICHELL s/o JAMES & HANNAH 23rd April 1701 bp. George & John MICHELL ss/o JAMES & HANNAH 30th May 1703 bp. William MICHELL s/o JAMES & HANNAH
Cannot find anything else to help just now but thought it was worth throwing in for discussion.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jul 22, 2007 23:42:12 GMT -5
It is known that Robert had a brother James (bp. Zennor 1664/5) and it has been mentioned in throughtout this discussion that he has been thought to be the father of the younger James. I have reason to dispute that which I will now try to explain (at the risk of repetition). 1. One abstract of Robert Michell's Will suggested mention of 'brother James'. 2. All other 'outlines' of this Will, so far, make NO MENTION of brother James. 3. Consistent is the mention of 'cosen James Michell'. 4. Other 'cosens' have been mentioned in this Will who are actually nephews of Robert. 5. The bequest to 'cosen James' indicates that his father is still living as he may have use of the 'anvil' until James reach the age of 20. Question - If 'cosen James' was the son of James and, therefore, nephew of the Testator, then why was his father not actually named in the Will? I don't have this Robert M will to hand but I don't see the lack of the naming of "cosen" James' father as a problem. We know that George Michell had a son James christened in 1665. We know too that there was a James Michell at Zennor having children by 1701 (christening of Hanna daughter of James in that year in Zennor BTs) We know also that this cannot be 'cosen James", as the latter was under-age in 1703. We know that a James died intestate in 1734 leaving a son named James as administrator. We also know that a James died in 1738 with a will naming sisters including Hannah, but no children. We know Hannah married in 1725. in other words, these details are all compatible with James the son of George being the father of both Hannah and James junior. Furthermore I do not know of any other James Michells in that time and place who could be candidates for the cosen James referred to by Robert. Pending any evidence to the contrary, I think the placing of c'osen" James as son of James father of Hannah seems sound enough.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jul 23, 2007 0:08:16 GMT -5
It is now shown that 'brother John HARY' is not a 'brother' but probably a brother-in-law. 'sister LUCE' is now known to be probably the widow of Robert's elder brother John who died about 1698. Agreed 'sister ELIZABETH' is named amongst those who are either widowed kin or nephews/neices of widowed siblings of Robert. This indicates to me that 'sister ELIZABETH' is herself a widow and was, probably, the wife of Robert's brother JAMES. Don' t agree. The will does not imply this at all. We don't know who Elizabeth was, whether she was an otherwise unidentified sister or an indentified sister-in-law. We certainly do not know that she was James's widow, because we do not know that James was dead. I don't believe he was, for I have him as the father of Hannah and not dying until 1734, for the reasons I have given above. Apart from Margaret, none of these names are consistent with the family of Robert Michell and his siblings. And they don't have to be. We are only talking about four names here, so the fact that two of them do not appear in earlier generations of the Michell family is not of itself enough evidence to show they aren't Robert's nephews and neices. Some of the names could easily have come from their mother's side of the family, as I pointed out in the James Michell thread. Furthermore we do not know that we have the names of all the kids, only those who were mentioned in the surviving BTs and in the will of 1738. The name Hannah is mentioned in at least two other Wills of the Michell family which are not yet directly or proved connections to this particular Robert Michell In my last post I have argued the case for the connection. I am satisfied that the presently available evidence points in this direction.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 23, 2007 13:40:18 GMT -5
I am far from convinced of the situation at the moment and, as you, believe it may all hinge around the name 'Hannah'. After work tonight I will try and pursue that side of things and then formulate a further note on the subject. As stated in my recent note, the placement of Elizabeth in the Will indicates to me that this was not an actual sister of the Testator but, like Luce, more likely a 'sister-in-law'. Was about to retire for the night but see we have a New Member with some queries so I will try to deal with a little of that first. Will post more on this particular subject as soon as I have done some more homework.
|
|