|
Post by trencrom on Jul 18, 2007 8:01:08 GMT -5
I want to make a point about the possible forebears of Thomas Michell.
Someone sent me a letter years ago where they had this Thomas as being the Thomas who was named at Zennor in the subsidy rolls of 1595, and as the son of another Thomas Michell who was named there in the rolls of 1546, and this older Thomas as the son of a John Michell of Zennor, who was named in the subsidy rolls of 1509 and again in 1523.
Now this could all prove to be quite correct but I have cince realised that we cannot presume that John is the grandfather of Thomas (II), for at least two reasons:
1. If Thomas (II) had "eldest son" Robert c. 1583, chances are Thomas married c. 1580-82. Then for the sake of argument. let's say that Thomas (II) was born c. 1555. If the father of Thomas (II) married as a young man not long before that time then Thomas (I) could just as easily be an older brother to Thomas' father, and hence an uncle to Thomas (II), instead of his father. Ditto also the relationship of John to Thomas (I)
2. However there is a further problem that I think warns us all to exercise caution when deaing with Tudor ancestry. Michell is a patronymic, and in the 1500s many patronymics had not yet become fixed surnames, but instead changed with each generation. Hence Robert John was the father of William Roberts who was in turn the father of Richard Williams. I see that Kathie has found this in her researches into some Gwithian families, where fortunately the parish registers go back into the mid-1500s, and it got me thinking as to when this ceased to be the case in the west Penwith parishes, whose surviving registers start rather later as we all know. I don't have an answer to that question as yet, but would suggest that those of us with West Penwith ancestry traceable to the end of the 1500s be very cautious about claiming people with patronymic surnames in the Tudor rolls as forebears simply because it is the same surname and in the same parish. (They might be right for non-patronymic surnames)
In other words and in this specific instance, the Zennor Michells of, say, the 1522 and 1545 subsidies, and perhaps even those of the 1569 muster roll, may not be earlier generations of the same family as the Zennor Michells of the 1600s at all.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 18, 2007 14:19:02 GMT -5
I am in total agreeance with this one. It has probably been 'a little' easier in this respect with some of my Trewhella forbears as the name is a little less common than Michell and many others. However, with farms named Trewhella (St Hilary), Trewhela (St Enoder) and Trewolla (Gorran) it can be confusing. Add to that a farm of Trewhela in Cury and then throw in Trevella it is easy to understand confusion. Over almost 30 years of playing this game I have learnt a few things and the last 10 years or so (with some gaps) has involved some interaction and (friendly) argument and discussion with Zenobia. I think it took us nearly two years to arrive at our current Trewhella scenario which goes back to a marriage at St Erth in 1580. Whilst St Erth is very close to St Hilary, and therefore Trewhella Farm, there is no evidence found to conclusively link the family to that farm. My own opinion, partially based on the 'meaning' of the surname is that, as this place was mentioned in the Domesday Book, that many people took that place as a surname. Must remember that surnames only gradually came into use from (I think) about the 1400-1500's in most cases. We know many names derived from occupations but, in the case of the Cornish, there can be differences. With Trewhella (var.) being the name of more than one place in Cornwall it is very likely that there is more than one descendancy of the name. My opinion is that, once surnames were becoming required to identify one person, or family, from another then possibly 'some interesting decisions' were made. In the case of my own family I think it very possible that there were people employed at 'Trewhella' who took that as a surname. Given that there are at least three Trewhella(var.)/Trewolla farms in Cornwall it is very possible, and perhaps obvious, that there are a number of unrelated families bearing the same name. Would welcome feedback on this last.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jul 18, 2007 17:23:41 GMT -5
Given the above, it would be interesting to see how many persons on the early muster rolls have the given name of Michael or Michell. If there are some, then it is quite possible that Thomas could be a son or grandson of one of those. If there are none, then it might be more likely that the Michell name did continue back further. I find it was a pretty arbitrary thing as to which families had fixed surnames at which point...it is one of those 'unknowns' that can make early genealogy very difficult...
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 18, 2007 19:28:55 GMT -5
My guess is that the name will appear with reasonable frequency but I am not sure that it will have much bearing on your comment.
I have seen this name (as a christian name) many times in the Protestation Returns which are, of course, much later.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jul 19, 2007 5:15:22 GMT -5
Given that there are at least three Trewhella(var.)/Trewolla farms in Cornwall it is very possible, and perhaps obvious, that there are a number of unrelated families bearing the same name.. I have not researched this family but would tend to agree with your thinking on this issue. The one question I would ask here is concerning the meaning of the name, and wherther that provides any possible clues.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 19, 2007 7:28:05 GMT -5
Trencrom - you will find that information in the Homepage Topic 'The Cornish Language'.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jul 19, 2007 16:26:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 19, 2007 16:51:39 GMT -5
Keep reading Dear Cousin and you will see that there is some 'method to my madness' ;D Now please look at recent notes and - HELP! I do not care if I am ultimately proved wrong - I just want the right resolution to all of this.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Sept 24, 2007 19:06:18 GMT -5
Bringing this back up...
Any speculation as to who Abigail Mitchell's son Hannibal might be?
Is he illegitimate?
Or did Thomas just neglect to mention his daughter's married surname? (It was a nuncupative will and they can get a bit slipshod).
How many persons named Hannibal show up on the ProtRet for Zennor and surrounding parishes?
Are there any burials at Zennor in say 1630-1660s for women named Abigail?
I would really like to locate Abigail's married name and see what other family line might run off of this.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Sept 25, 2007 6:58:25 GMT -5
"Abigail' appears in the Perry family in the 1690s although that may be a bit late to be of relewvance here. "Hannibal" appears in three families that I know of in the Zennor area around this time, but oddly enough so far none of the three appear to be connected to either the Michells -- or to each other.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 25, 2007 14:56:43 GMT -5
tut, tut, tut! and a small smack on the wrist. Just fancy even thinking about asking about details for Zennor Burials in that particular time period given the fact there is not a great deal available and, what might be available, is going to be 'scattered remains' of what was originally recorded. ;D To sort out this part of the families of Zennor in that particular period is going to take a lot of work. But the more input we have, the more questions we have and the more evidence we can find will give us a chance to solve the puzzle. Do not forget that the surrounding Parishes and their records might give us some invaluable clues - as might a 'stray' record in a Parish a little further away. Let us keep our eyes (mine are a little 'snafu'), ears and minds open for anything that might help.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Sept 25, 2007 22:38:36 GMT -5
Had a look in the relevant surviving BTs last night -- found no Abigails.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Sept 26, 2007 17:00:14 GMT -5
So - did our Abigail die and was buried somewhere in the time for which PRs and BTs are non-extant? Did she possibly marry sometime after the previously mentioned Will was made - if so - Where??? Is there any other information available that might help? Perhaps a read through all available Wills for Zennor (in particular) and possibly Morvah might provide some further clues.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Sept 26, 2007 23:24:23 GMT -5
I believe she was already married when her father's will was made. He just did not bother to name her husband. The fact that the name Abigail shows up later in the Perry family (it was not a terribly common name in that time and place) would seem to indicate that the original Abigail was around for awhile. That is why I would like to have any Hannibals from Zennor, Morvah etc thoroughly documented to see if they may prove to be her son...
One person I keep looking at is Hannibal harry, who d. 1690 in Morvah. What do we know about him?
Trencrom, if you could give a synopsis of the three Hannibals that you referenced earlier, so we know who to rule out, it would be helpful.
A list of any Abigails born in Zennor in the later years might be helpful also.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Sept 27, 2007 5:19:37 GMT -5
Zenobia: The three I am immediately aware of are: 1. Hannibal Thomas (son of George Thomas and Cheston Davy) 2. Hannibal Levelis (son of William and Honour Levelis) 3. Hannibal Harry of Morvah. There could be others that I am not familiar with as well. We can rule out 1. and 2. immediately. I also cannot say that I have not seen "Abigail" appear in the subsequent Harrys of Morvah, although given the late commencement dates of the surviving records there, perhaps that is not too conclusive. For what it might be worth, I was looking at a book on Rouses in Devon today and noticed a Hannibal Rouse in the same time frame as the above. Although I cannot prove it at present, I suspect this was a popular first name in the early 17th century. Like "Zenobia", "Hannibal" is a name derived from classical times as you probably know. Perhaps names from that era were in vogue in the late Tudor/early Stuart era--
|
|