|
Post by trencrom on Jul 13, 2007 5:01:02 GMT -5
Makes you wonder what else might be at DRO for Zennor.
Presumably at DRO because they were church records, Cornwall being part of the Diocese of Exeter.
See PM
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 13, 2007 14:32:53 GMT -5
I have often wondered about Exeter also, particularly in the case of the Will of a David Trewhella in about 1741.
My belief is that this was one of the grandsons named in the 1678 Will of Christopher Cock.
Probate indexes list the Will for a David Trewhela of St Sidwell, 1741.
From another source:- "This Will was included in a book of Devonshire Wills and Admons (published 1908) proved at the Archdeaconery Court."
But our biggest problem with Exeter is that many records were lost during the bombing raids in WWII.
We are probably extremely fortunate to have what we do but it would seem that at least some records may have been copied with the copies deposited elsewhere prior to the raids.
We can only hope that more of these 'backups' were done and that more information and records might surface.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jul 15, 2007 22:23:11 GMT -5
I know that some abstracts of Devon wills were done prior to the War, not sure how many are in this category though. Believe the list of the same is held at the DRO and is called the Moger index.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 16, 2007 10:42:21 GMT -5
That could be very useful - even if I don't find David's Will there.
If anyone reading this thread has access to the DRO and would be willing to 'check it out' and see what might be included it would be most welcome.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jul 16, 2007 18:15:04 GMT -5
There are three surviving collections of Devon wills: 1. Charles Worthy "Devonshire Wills - a collection of annotated testamentary abstracts, together with the family history and genealogy of many of the most ancient gentle houses of the West of England" LDS film # 246879 2. Oswyn-Murray Collection of wills ca. 1600-1800 (available in 20 volumes on film, also thru LDS) 3. Olive M. Moger - Transcripts of Devonshire Wills, 1600-1800. (44 volumes on film - LDS) Mind you - these are for Devon only, no Cornish ones for the Diocese of Exeter were included. There may also be some transcription in the Devon Notes and Queries Series that were missed in these three volumes. These do not comprise all of the missing Devon wills, many are just irretrievably lost...
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 17, 2007 9:54:53 GMT -5
Thankyou for that information - it is certainly useful to know. But there might still be a possibility the Will of David Trewhella has survived in one of these volumes. You see, I do not know whether he might have moved from Cornwall before his demise in which case it would possibly not have been recorded as a Cornish Will held in Devon.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 21, 2007 16:18:55 GMT -5
Regarding the 'two' John Phillips of Zennor. Have now made some corrections to my database. I now show that my (currently orphanged) John married Joan Row in 1625/6. I also now show that John s/o Matthew was married to 'Elner'. Have included the burial for son Matthew and also added the bp. date for Francis. Problem now is - that 1607 baptism for __hn s/o Matthew. As previously mentioned, I was transcribing this information from a 'transcription' which was presumably that of W. Treffry Hoblyn. My reading of that transcription showed __hn etc. Just checked IGI and it shows merely that a 'son of' Matthew Phillips was baptised on that day. That being the case then there are at least THREE places where an error may have occurred:- 1. Hoblyn 2. MYSELF in my reading of that filmed Transcript 3. The IGI submitter I would like to have another look at that particular document but it is extremely difficult for me to do so given the only place I know that has it is in Melbourne. But I would be happy in the knowledge that I was wrong because, at this stage, we would be looking at John being less than 18 when he married Elner. I will be quite happy to alter this again to reflect John as being born some years earlier. The 1607 baptism would need to be altered to read "__hn" with appropriate notes suggesting that it may not, in fact, be John. Will await your thoughts and possible further input on this one.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jul 22, 2007 22:07:45 GMT -5
Wasn't the Hoblyn transcript microfilmed by the LDS? Might be wrong in my recollection here though.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 23, 2007 9:18:43 GMT -5
Really can't answer that one.
I viewed the microfilm at the Library of the Australian Institute of Genealogical Studies in Melbourne.
Would be a fair bet that the LDS did film it though.
IF the entry is, in fact, John then we have to accept the fact that he was married at 17 or 18.
IF it is NOT John then we are looking at another son of Matthew who did not survive.
|
|
anne
Noweth
Posts: 10
|
Post by anne on Jun 10, 2008 2:28:10 GMT -5
Hello everyone After a long gap I have been casually looking at the Phillips family again and I re-read this topic. I wonder if the Francis son of John and Matthew son of James mentioned in the1628 Matthew will are really grandsons of that Matthew or whether they are nephews or similar. The reason for this wondering is that the extract has Thomas and James specifically mentioned as children of Matthew and Alice specified as a daughter of a son, but there is no such qualification for the other two. Also if the extract reflects the shape of the will then James and Alice are mentoed in a different place to Matthew son of James. Just a thought.....
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jun 15, 2008 0:44:30 GMT -5
I am confident enough that they are all grandchildren - it is just the way the Will was structured. If you take another look you will notice that all the inititial bequests went to 'male' children. In the first case it was to Francis s/o John. Then we have Matthew s/o James. Next we have the 'three sons' of Thomas. My reading is that John and James each had only one son at the time Matthew wrote his Will. (Although John had a son Matthew who was buried in 1726.) Thomas had three sons and this is clearly specified that the three boys are his. (And obviously saves a bit of writing ) We then have mention of 'god-daughter' Judith Sweete and then Robert Michell. Now Matthew begins specifying who was who by mentioning James as his son. And it is at this point that the first and only female grandchild is mentioned - Alice daughter of James. Thomas and Phillippa come next but, strangely, not John. James and Thomas are forgiven bonds owed so it is probable that John was not in such debt to his father. And finally (prior to the executor) we have all of his children mentioned together - John, James, Thomas and Phillippa. So you see it is merely a case of boys come first and the girls can wait as you will see quite often in old Wills and Deeds. And you will see it from time to time in the Census records also as I have done on many occasions. In one household you will see the 'Head' and his wife and then all sons followed by all daughters irrespective of age. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
Post by myghaelangof on Aug 7, 2008 16:24:42 GMT -5
Hi guys, dont know if this is any help in identifying the John Phillips, but I've just reviewed the 1641 Subsidy Roll for Zennor. This lists 12 payers of the subsidy including Johes Phillip of Trevial. Johns' entry is the only one containing a place of abode within the parish, suggesting a second John was in circulation at the time. (Independently listed is Jacobus Phillip) Given the date, 1641, which is after the 1639 death of John who married Elnor, it suggests yet another John? The closest spelt modern day places on the OS maps are Treveal and Trevail Mill which are on the North coast fairly equidistant between the churches of Zennor, Towednack and St.Ives. The easiest walk probably being to Towednack. The John and Francis lines continue to elude, and now the later Matthew Phillips' get more perplexing!
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Aug 7, 2008 22:46:43 GMT -5
Mike, thanks for this. Where did you find the subsidy information?Was it in Matthews' book, or elsewhere?
I agree, "Trevial" sounds like Treveale. Not sure though that the insertion of a place name indicates the presence of a second John -- "Jacobus" is a Latinisation of "James".
Trencrom
|
|
|
Post by londoner on Aug 8, 2008 3:36:43 GMT -5
Zennor is far easier from Trevail than Towednack - about half an hour on the "Church" or "Coffin" path. And some of the most spectacular scenery if you are fit enough to take the coast path!
|
|
|
Post by myghaelangof on Aug 8, 2008 7:54:49 GMT -5
Hi Trencrom and Londoner, thanks for your comments and thoughts. I dont know that stretch of the coast, but topographically it looked easier on the OS map to walk up the valley towards Towednack. I think I might just do the Coffin walk next week, and see how spectacular it is. Should be in Just next Friday for a week or so, providing I find some decent b&b! Have definitely got Friday to Monday sorted. I went to The National Archives last year and looked at the original rolls, mainly focussing on trying to find Penberthy/Shakerley in St Just, but I did photograph one or two other local rolls whilst there. The fact that John's entry was the only one with a place name still suggests to me the presence of another John, and this is a way of identifying a particular man. It could be a 'label' that stuck with him even after the other John died 1639.
|
|