|
Post by trencrom on Jul 11, 2007 6:24:36 GMT -5
Another new thread for an older generation:
I felt prompted to have another look at the will for Thomas to review who is named therein.
What I find in the will is very interesting.
It is not signed. No witnesses have signed it either.
For some reason the pronouns have been changed throughout most of the will. so that "doe make my last will" becomes "did make his last will", "I bequeath my soule" becomes "he bequeaths his soul" "Robert Michell my eldest son" becomes "Robert Michell his eldest son" and so forth, right throughout the body of the will. Whether this change has anything to do with the will not being signed I do not know, but cannot help wondering if it does.
According to the will Thomas has: "eldest son Robert" "George and Israel his sons" Jennet Perry my/his eldest daughter" "her 3 sons George Thomas & John" "Abigayle my/his youngest daughter" "Hanniball her son" and Thomas' wife (not named)
BUT
where it says "George and Israel his sons" the word "his" is an uncorrected original -- there is no "my" to be found here, unlike everywhere else. "His" therefore means Robert's, not Thomas' sons.
Thomas obviously did have other sons, if Robert is the "eldest" but it looks like they did not inherit from him. Why? and who were they?
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 11, 2007 14:54:01 GMT -5
I do see your point regarding the wording of this document and also the relationships therein. I have not personally seen a copy of this Will but have had it abstracted. But the way you have described this document indicates to me that it may have been a nuncupative Will. It also throws some further thoughts into the pot for tomorrow night's 'stew'. (thinking, thinking, thinking - Rawhide!) (Ooops - got a bit carried away there.)
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jul 11, 2007 19:06:08 GMT -5
I have this one abstracted - it was definitely a nuncupative will. The way I read it - I took it to mean that Robert, George and Israel were all sons of the testator. I vaguely remember discussing this one many year ago with Ian (this was before I got access to the will itself), and if I recall correctly Israel was indeed the age to be a son, and not a grandson of Thomas. "His" in a nuncupative will is normally going to refer to the testator, as a deathbed witness is giving the info in the third person. I would have to see the original again in full to make a certain determination, but based on my abstract that was the way I took it... Sadly, it may be awhile before I can get to the FHC and double check it...
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jul 11, 2007 19:09:42 GMT -5
Jennet Perry of course opens another can of worms, as taking the rarity of the Perry surname in that area, it is very likely (but not yet proven ) that her son John is the father of Honor Perry Glasson....
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jul 11, 2007 22:18:08 GMT -5
I agree that it must be nuncuperative: perhaps the testator died after it was first drawn up but before he could sign it, hence the changes afterwards.
Israel married 8/11/1640 at Zennor, to Phillipa Quick, assuming that he married in his early to mid-twenties that makes him an older brother to George son of Robert. A correspondent wrote me years ago that Israel died from battle wounds before Taunton on 10/4/1645, don't know where they got this this information from though.
If Robert the son of Thomas is the same Robert that is described in Matthew Philip's will of 1628 (and I do not know of any other candidate for him), then he was born to Thomas in about 1583, as he was 45 in 1628.
A possible candidate for another of Thomas' sons may be the Ralph Michell who married a Margaret on 25 Sept 1625 at Zennor. They had a daughter Lucrece christened on 12 April 1635.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 13, 2007 1:20:46 GMT -5
Israel Michell seems to be the way the name 'Israel' came into the Quick family. A quote from my old database regarding Israel and his demise:- "Israel is reported to have died at the battle of Taunton in 1645. A letter, reputedly written in a form to suggest a Will, is deposited at the Cornwall Record Office, it is dated 1645 and names 'my loving wife Philip at Zennor'. " Best I can do with that one for now.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 13, 2007 18:05:13 GMT -5
More fuel for the fire. Do we have just ONE or do we have TWO men named ISRAEL MICHELL in the early 17th Century. Working from the Nuncupative Will of Thomas Michell I can offer this:- 26th November 1611 [____] Perrie m. JENNET MICHELL at Zennor Jennet was probably born no later than 1695 (making her 16 at marriage) Brother Robert, given he is the 45 year old Robert Michell mentioned in the 1628 deposition regarding the Will of Matthew Phillips was born about 1583. Robert, Jennet and Abigayl are the only three who are directly, and without doubt, nominated as children of Thomas Michell in his Will of 1621. Robert is named as 'eldest son' which indicates others. The marriage of George to Emlin Phillips in 1645 followed by at least 8 children precludes him from being a son of Thomas. Israel who married Phillipa Quick in 1640 and then died about 1645 I think I would also discount as being a son of Thomas. We know that Phillipa was bp. at Zennor in 1619 and we know that Jennet Michell was married 8 years previously. To believe that Israel was the brother of Jennet and married 29 years later prior to going off to war seems a little hard to appreciate. I therefore humbly defer to the opinion of Trencrom that George and Israel were, indeed, sons of Robert and then, by inference, grandsons of the Testator Thomas Michell in 1621. Think, dear friends, and find as many holes as you can to deflate my thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jul 13, 2007 22:00:43 GMT -5
More fuel for the fire. 26th November 1611 [____] Perrie m. JENNET MICHELL at Zennor WHAT??? This is an outrage! I demand that that [_____] be filled in immediately! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jul 13, 2007 23:49:23 GMT -5
Incidentally, the chronology put forth by Ian appears more than sound. It has been years since I saw any of the Michell stuff, so was going by my interpretation of the Thomas Michell will when I saw it, but I will have to say that I was wrong - George and Israel would certainly have to be grandsons.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 14, 2007 12:29:22 GMT -5
Would really love to be able to fill in the gap in the 'Perrie/Michell' marriage but, unfortunately, I have only the Hoblyn Transcript to work from and that is all he could come up with at the time. I have also never seen (physically or filmed copies) any of the existing PR's or BT's from that period at Zennor. Perhaps we might find some people who have some sort of copies of the both sets of BT's and would be kind enough to try and help us out. I have transcripts or (more likely) abstracts of one or two Perry Wills here that I will try and locate but, from memory, they are not really much help to us in this situation. But you would have noticed from Thomas Michell's Will that the three Perry children were George, Thomas and John so there could well be a possible connection for you. I will also now need to reconstruct my early Michell family to reflect more of our recent discussions. My thoughts had always been that the Israel who married Phillipa Quick and the George who married Emlin Phillips could not have been sons of Thomas (1621) so I have, for all this time, kept them 'parentless' in my database. When I entered data from the Will I included all those not directly named as grandchildren as sons and daughters of Thomas. Will now have to remove George and Israel and place them under Robert's care. There is still the problem of Robert being named as 'eldest son'.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jul 15, 2007 22:43:18 GMT -5
The BTs for 1611 do not give the husband's name-- it is smudged out at the torn edge of the page and only part of the last letter is visible. It looks to be something long with a cross in the middle --not sure what it is , could be a "t" or an "f".
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 16, 2007 11:02:04 GMT -5
Given that he was the only Perry listed in the 1613 Church Rate at Zennor it would be very easy to say that he MUST have been the man who married Jennet Michell. (And I have probably already alluded to that possibility.)
But it has also been pointed out that it may only have been those of sufficient means who were required to pay that particular Rate.
This, of course, leaves wide open the possibility that it was, in fact, a son of this Daniel given that the name was carried on.
Another point to consider is that, in his Will of 1621, Thomas MICHELL indicated that he had three PERRY grandchildren - GEORGE, THOMAS and JOHN.
One might have expected that, if Daniel Perry was the man in question, he might have named one of those first three sons after himself which leads to the conclusion that the man who married Jennett MICHELL shared the same Christian name as one of those sons.
We may never know the correct answer.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jul 16, 2007 18:18:54 GMT -5
Well, if the last letter looked like a t or an f - it could just as easily be a written looped l As for the church rate - all persons that leased a house or piece of land were required to pay the church rate - unless they themselves were receiving relief from the parish.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jul 16, 2007 22:10:34 GMT -5
Zenobia: another look at the entry suggests you may be right.
Immediately both below and to the left of the letter concerned it looks as if the top part only of the page has gone leaving tear marks on the inner boundary of the affected area. What I first thought was the bottom stroke of the "t" or "f" could instead be one of these. Furthermore there is a faint line next to the left hand side of the top stroke. There is definitely a horizontal stroke to the right, but if the "bottom stroke" is actually a tear mark then that horizontal stroke coul;d be at the bottom of the letter, rather than halfway down it. That would be consistent with the way the leter "L" is written elsewhere on the same page.
In other words, it is quite possible that we are looking at a"ll" here.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 17, 2007 11:45:23 GMT -5
It would appear we are looking more and more at DANYELL Perry I am thinking. WE are making progress my friends. Will try to look at a couple more things before I go to bed as have to do the beer delivery for the pub tomorrow.
|
|