George Michell m. 1645

[trencrom]

ianjtrewhella said:

I am far from convinced of the situation at the moment and, as you, believe it may all hinge around the name 'Hannah'.

I have a copy of the 1703 will and checked the same after my last post here.
It definitely includes a bequest to 'brother" James Michell of "fower" pounds.

I would ask: given that we know from the 1734 document that there was a James father of James, is there any positive evidence that anyone else in the family had a son James Michell who was under 20 in 1703?

ianjtrewhella said:

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'.
'.

I don't agree that the wording of the will gives us any indication either one way or the other. The only reason we could conclude that Luce was a sister-in-law was because we had independent evidence in the form of John Michell's will to indicate that this was the case. We do not have such evidence to date in the case of Elizabeth.

[Zenobia]

ianjtrewhella said:

'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.

When I see a female named without a surname, my first assumption is that she is a spinster.

However, if the testator got lazy at this point, she could just as easily be a widow, OR, even a still married person....

[Cornish Terrier]

PLEASE - do not take this the wrong way.

FINALLY I have an answer regarding James MICHELL, brother of Robert of 1703.

My original (received) transcript of this Will mentioned 'brother James' but all other sources had indicated that James was NOT mentioned.

I believe I have questioned this at least twice during recent discussions.

Now that I have some confirmation that James actually WAS named in the Will of his brother Robert I can work with this family a little more easily.

This has been a key point in my discussions/arguments.

I can also now look differently at the 'sister ELIZABETH' scenario. ;D

Have a couple more things to look at on this subject so will place thoughts on those in my next posting.

[Cornish Terrier]

Let's bear in mind that I 'may' have missed something when I noted entries from Hoblyn's Transcript of the Zennor Parish Register.

We have an Admon. for James MICHELL dated 1734 in which his son, also James, is involved.

The Will of son James was proved in 1738 (I think) and he would be the James MICHELL buried at Zennor 19th October 1738.

The ONLY other burial for a James Michell at Zennor prior to this is:-

JAMES MICHEL 12th April 1713

THOUGHTS PLEASE

[Cornish Terrier]

I have yet something more to throw into the mix here.

The discussion about LUCE has been inconclusive and a couple of ideas have been included.

Try this and it will be open for discussion:-

26th December 1738 at Zennor LUCRETIA Michell d/o JOHN and JANE was buried

I believe this couple to be:-

John MICHELL m. Joan CHRISTOPHER 3rd June 1712 at Zennor

My previous research indicates the probability that JOHN was the son of JOHN & LUCE Michell.

In an earlier note I queried the possibility of LUCE being a possible daughter from the following Zennor Marriage:-

[____] Philip, junr. & LUCRECE BERRIMAN 2nd October 1641

Back to you. ;D

[Zenobia]

Any possibility of one of you posting a separate Mitchell outline (including 'tentative' connections) here in the Zennor Board to make the lines a bit easier to follow?

[Cornish Terrier]

Hmmmmm, Mmmmmaybe

Problem is that all we have been discussing, I think, have been the children and grandchildren of George Michell and his wife Emblen with much of this discussion centering on the 1703 Will of Robert Michell.

A couple of others have been brought into the mix purely because of the mixed information I had received and was, until yesterday, still receiving regarding the mention of JAMES in the Will of his brother Robert.

Now that point is clarified we may be able to refine things but I think this particular group needs to 'stay together'.

[Zenobia]

I was going to suggest an outline starting with Thomas Mitchell and tracing a few geneations down thru the 1711 and 1724 Robert....

I do find following the branches a bit difficult...

[Zenobia]

Of course, if you would rather take a little time out from Zennor to go analyze Paynes, that would be fine with me too...

[Cornish Terrier]

Your point is taken ;D
But the last couple of days without access has been a problem.

Will see what I can do for you on this one after I have 'sorted out' a couple of the immediate problems.
From there I should be able to make some 'separations' that might help.

Have had a couple of reads of the Payne Pain from the copies I printed out but, so far, no real conclusions.

Will take another look now that I might be able to put thoughts straight into the thread.