|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 19, 2007 16:03:57 GMT -5
With reference to some of our previous notes (and I do not mean to be picky!) I must throw in the following:- John DAVY of Zennor in 1611 William Tregenhorne s/o John Tregenhorne daughter Luce & her children Elizabeth w/o John Tregenhorneson's daughter Cheson etc. son Richard Davy POINT - you will notice that the Tregenhorne family is not named with any mention of relationship. Now let us move to the 1629 Will of Richard Davy the elder of Zennor:- SISTER - Elizabeth Tregenhorne(Just something to throw into the mix for us to consider whilst working on some of our other little projects. ) AND whilst looking at these two particular Wills again I have noticed something else worth discussing. In 1611 John DAVY mentions 'daughter LUCE & her children' One of the overseers is JOELL HICKS in 1629 Richard DAVY names:- sister LUCE MORRACKE Elizabeth d/o LUCE HICKS Do we have a case here where LUCE DAVY was married to (possibly Joel) HICKS, was widowed and then married someone named MORRACKE? My reading of the 1629 document tends to suggest that Richard DAVY'S sister had been married to a HICKS and had at least one daughter, ELIZABETH. I then see the scenario of Elizabeth being widowed and then re-marrying. (MORRACKE) It would then appear that Richard DAVY has made some differentiation in order to ensure that his neice received her inheritance. The question must then be asked - 'what of the other children of LUCE as mentioned in the 1611 document' In this instance I can see the possibility that 'PPHILIP d/o THOMAS QUICK could be related although no mention is made of a Zenobia in the 1611 Will. We then have the bequests to the THOMAS family who, although not named as such, would appear to be grandchildren given that Richard's only daughter was married to George THOMAS. Now to try and find some information on the TREGENHORNE family which, I would think, would come from around the St Erth or Ludgvan area.
|
|
|
Post by genie on Jul 19, 2007 16:26:04 GMT -5
I don't expect that this will be of any use but there is a male Donithorne marriages at Ludgvan,4 male Blights, 6 female Blights,2 male Davy's and 3 female Davy's.All between 1813 and 1837.
1 male Davy,1 male Blight,4 female Blights marriages at Lelant during 1813 and 1837.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 19, 2007 16:47:19 GMT -5
Thanks Genie - I know that at least some of those are going to come into play at some later stage as I have another contact (yet to join this Board) who is interested in at least some of them. Please keep following things and offer anything you can, even if you think it might sound a little outrageous. It could just help. And do not think you are being ignored with other items of interest.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 19, 2007 18:16:15 GMT -5
More for the mix regarding the two early DAVY Wills. A further re-read of the Wills of John DAVY (1611) and Richard DAVY (1629) throw some more fuel to the fire. The two Wills, combined, seem to prove undoubtedly that Richard (1629) was son of John (1611). Sometime between 1611 and 1629 Cheson DAVY was married to George THOMAS. We do not seem to know the extent of JOHN DAVY's estate but he did leave "son RICHARD DAVY 2 mazer cuppes, all the rest and named him executor" In 1629 RICHARD DAVY is able to afford 10 POUNDS each for Margaret, John, Mathew, Peter, Elizabeth and Thomas THOMAS with Margaret also receiving one heifer and Peter and Elizabeth receiving one ewe sheep between them. AS 'CHESTON' was his only daughter and was named as wife of GEORGE THOMAS it is reasonable to suggest that each of the above legatees were grandchildren of Richard DAVY. As an aside - it is also interesting to note that Richard DAVY mentions 'only daughter' CHESTON' and soon afterwards makes the following bequest:- my poor maid: MARY PORMDARE to be given some aid by daughter CHRISTIAN 1. I believe the maid will be Mary PORMEARE 2. CHRISTIAN and CHESTON are undoubtedly the same person NOW - was the Estate of John DAVY more extensive than what appears in the Will. (An Inventory might help) OR - did his son Richard DAVY amass a good deal between 1611 and 1629. Of the THOMAS bequests in this Will only Peter does not appear in my 'current' list of children for George THOMAS. This would probably indicate that Peter died sometime before September 1666 when his father wrote his Will. Working from other THOMAS Wills connected with this family I can find no further record of a Peter. GEORGE THOMAS left a Will in 1666 as 'George Thomas als Trishwell'. Son HANIBALL, who was named executor of the Will of his Grandfather RICHARD DAVY died about 1638. His Admon. was granted to his father, GEORGE THOMAS and, at that time, Hannibal was described as 'yeoman of TRITHWALL'. MARGARET, I believe, married Arthur BERRIMAN and appears to have been deceased prior to May 1675. Amongst her children is GEORGE as named in the Will of his uncle John THOMAS. named with brother Matthew, as residual legatee and executor of their father's Will in 1666. In 1675 John and Matthew were also named residual legatees and executors for the Will of their brother JAMES THOMAS (who must have been born after 1629.) The next legacy was to PETER and ELIZABETH THOMAS who had 10 pounds each and '1 ewe between them'. As mentioned, it would appear that Peter did not survive - but I believe his sister is the ELIZABETH THOMAS who married THOMAS RENODEN at Zennor in 1666. THOMAS THOMAS left a Will in 1706 and, amongst his seven known children, were GEORGE and CHESTON.k This leaves one further child who was not mentioned in 1629 - WILLIAM THOMAS who was mentioned in the Will of his brother MATTHEW in 1704. (This William must not be confused with the William Thomas who married ORCHARD and whose Wills were proved earlier than this.) More on this later after everyone has had time to digest the information. (Me included.)
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jul 20, 2007 5:39:19 GMT -5
Healthy discussion and 'shots over the bow' - good. Points from your latest - in order:- 1. Agreed, however if I may refer to the 1699 Will of James Trewheela of Scilly we find some similar 'abstract' legacies. I have mentioned this before where it took Zenobia and I probably two years to come to a consensus on the legacies of this Will. With combinations of other Wills and available data we concluded that ...... . And you may well do so. But, without knowing the research details of this other case, I take it that you clearly ascertained that these folk were relations from other independent data that pointed conclusively to it. Ditto for the will of John Davy, where the relationships that were not spelt out in his will were however made explicit by the later will of his son Richard. But where such outside corroborating data is not available, you have no grounds for believing that such legatees must have been relations. As I have already pointed out, not all were. In the specific instance that we have been discussing, what independent data there is suggests otherwise, for the reasons that I have gone into detail about in my last post. In particular, you need to go over my points 6-8 again because I'm afraid that your response does not address them. I am satisfied on the present evidence that the Blights were not relations. Since Jane was not mentioned in Richard's will, as I have already pointed out, there is no grounds for believing that her husband was his brother-in-law either. As for the Donithornes, a check of my Protestation notes shows that a Richard Donithorne signed the oath at St Ives in 1641. So this demonstrates the Donithorne family had indeed spread out by the time that we have been discussing. Also, I know of no word "omnastic". I meant the word I used. One final point: I forgot to mention that while godparents could be relations, they did not have to be. Not does it follow that the godparent had to live in the same parish. There also also enough contact and movement between parishes, including between the non-adjacent Zennor and Gulval where in around the very time frame that we have been discussing there was a marriage between a Zennor Berriman and a Gulval Donithorne (of all families ;D), for an alternate parish of residence to be discounted as a factor when asking whether a godparent was also a relation.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 20, 2007 15:35:25 GMT -5
Seems to me there are a few misunderstandings involved in a number of our notes regarding what I, in partular, have to see regarding relationships etc. in Wills and other documents. Perhaps I have not been expressing or explaining myself as well as I might. I certainly agree with all you have said regarding Parish boundaries, godchildren etc. - I have been merely pointing out the results of many of my own findings that enable us to see the different interpretations that can be used for these oft used terms in old Wills. Recent discussions have shown that some interpretations have been misleading and they have been, or are in the process of being, corrected. Now to specifically answer a couple of points in your latest:- But where such outside corroborating data is not available, you have no grounds for believing that such legatees must have been relations. As I have already pointed out, not all were. I do not believe I have ever said that, in these cases, the legatees 'must' be relations - merely tried to point out the possibility that they may have been and, in numerous cases, ultimately are. In the cases where it is proved or determined that a legatee is 'not' a relation then I am sure we all like to know just why that person was a beneficiary of the Will. It may sometimes prove that a legatee was simply an 'old friend' who was being looked after. (As an example) By finding more about the legatee may very well lead to further information about the actual Testator. I am satisfied on the present evidence that the Blights were not relations. Since Jane was not mentioned in Richard's will, as I have already pointed out, there is no grounds for believing that her husband was his brother-in-law either. As for the Donithornes, a check of my Protestation notes shows that a Richard Donithorne signed the oath at St Ives in 1641. Fair comment but, once again, I was merely trying to offer alternatives to be considered and, in both the Blight and Donithorne cases, I simply want to know how and why they were beneficiaries of the Will. If it does indeed turn out that they were definitely not related then there will be another reason for their inclusion in the Will. As I just described, this reason may help us to find out more about Richard Davy through his associations with people who were, perhaps, from other Parishes. It may also be that there were property deeds involved from years beforehand where these families shared commonality by being, for some reason, each named together as 'lives' on a particular piece of real estate. Do not know - merely offering thoughts because I believe every possibility should be considered and then each discarded on merit or, more particularly, as it is absolutely proven that it is no longer a possibility. "Sift out the wheat from the chaff!" - so to speak. Looking forward to more discussion.
|
|
|
Post by trencrom on Jul 21, 2007 4:09:48 GMT -5
Very briefly as I have to go --- My position is that legatees who are not actually described as relations in a will may well prove to be so through independent information and subsequent research, but the relationship needs to be proved. We cannot assume that they are relations until proven to be otherwise. One needs to be able to prove that they are actually relations, not prove that they are not. I have been of late considering two other Penwith wills where there were legatees who received bequests as valuable, if not more so, than clearly identifed relations, nevertheless try as I might, in each instance I cannot make these legatees relations of the testators in question, as the details of the relevant folk and their known families seem in each case to preclude this. Neither of these wills are among the ones we have discussed on this forumj to date. I agree that we would all like to know exactly why a non-relation or apparent non-relation is included in a will. Unfortunately in many instances we will probably never know.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 21, 2007 13:23:06 GMT -5
Agreed ;D And I will have to learn how to 'box those quotes' properly. Might take a glance through some of our recent and make some relevant updates to my database - i.e. BT dates you have provided. Then, if time, maybe look at a bit of my other stuff for a while. Look forward to your next. BTW - if those two last-mentioned Wills have anything to do with the general area I would be very interested in seeing details of them. May 'possibly' have other information but may also be able to offer some further ideas for you if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jul 23, 2007 21:05:09 GMT -5
As an aside - it is also interesting to note that Richard DAVY mentions 'only daughter' CHESTON' and soon afterwards makes the following bequest:- my poor maid: MARY PORMDARE to be given some aid by daughter CHRISTIAN 1. I believe the maid will be Mary PORMEARE 2. CHRISTIAN and CHESTON are undoubtedly the same person Cheston/Christian - could always be a transcription error....
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 24, 2007 9:12:22 GMT -5
Transcription Error - from you Possible - but you and I have seen enough of these names and I suspect you may have it right. I do believe it is probably the same girl. We do not (probably) know whether the document you transcribed from was actually written by the Testator or whether it was written by an 'attorney'/'clerk' transcribing the Testator's words. I guess it may also have been a Clerk's Transcription of the original document. Probably lucky there was not a third mention of this girl - could have been written as CHATRON. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jul 24, 2007 14:08:18 GMT -5
Yes, I knew it was my transcription, that was why the " " I don't know how much experience you have had with seeing original wills, but the ones in both the AP and non AP volumes are all in individually different handwriting, indicating that either the testators wrote the wills themselves, or, for those who could not write, they dictated them to a freind, relative, lawyer etc. I suspect that I copied it wrong. Altho' it does seem a bit unlikely that I would not have caught the error! If I ever get my yard cleanup probs solved (inspector is coming out tomorrow - yard looks great, so hopefully will get no further flack about my storage trailers), then I will get to the FHC and double-check this.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 25, 2007 15:51:34 GMT -5
I reckon I have seen the 'odd original' in my time. But most Wills I have seen I would have to say were not actually written by the Testator. Let's face it - How many Wills have you seen where the Testator signs with a 'mark'. I would think that most Wills were dictated and the details written down by a lawyer or his clerk. In any case - it would appear that, from the bulk of the Wills that I have seen, a 'form copy' has been made from original notes and this would be largely what we see today. Hence the often long and drawn out preamble. With all being taken into account I should think it more likely that it was a much earlier error than your own if, indeed, it is an error. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jul 25, 2007 23:32:43 GMT -5
Thanks for your vote of confidence in my transcribing.... That said, I am going to have to violently disagree with your assessment of the early wills being "copies". If you look at Cornish wills post about 1712, you will see what are called 'clerks copies' - ie: a clerk in the probate office handled the original will, and copied it verbatim into a 'will book'. These wills are immediately distinguishable as copies, as they are all in the same handwriting for long stretches of time, and are obviously all copied in by the same person. BUT! When you look at the pre-1700s wills, they are in all different handwritings, different inks, on all differnt size papers. These are quite obviously not copies, but originals that were either halographic, or were dictated by an unlettered testator by a friend, neighbor, the local gent, etc., whoever could write and was known and trusted by the testator. These were never copied into 'will books' but were filed as originals. Obviously if the testator signed with a mark, then we know he dictated the will to someone else. If he or she signed their name, then they may have written the will themselves, although this is not hard and fast, as many people could sign their name, but not write anything further than that. The post 1711 wills that were copied by the clerks, were copied verbatim from the originals, but of course mistakes in copying could be made. The unfortuante thing with the UK is that if the originals of the later wills were kept, they were not filmed or are not available. All we have on those is the clerks copies. In the US, all wills were copied into a will book by a clerk, while the originals were filed (along with any of the other pertinent documents) in a 'probate packet.' I learned long ago in my US research to always request the documents from the original probate packet, partly because it would contain various records that were never routinely copied into the willbooks, and also because the copied wills could have an occasional mistake. I was once working with a Penna. will of an ancestor, and was having trouble reading the bottom line, so I wrote to the county and asked if I could get a better copy. They sent a copy of the original, and I discovered then that the clerk's copy was missing several lines in the middle of the will. The clerk had copied "meine frau Regina", apparently looked away from the page, looked back and his eyes caught the next occurrance of "meine frau Regina" and he continued copying from there, missing a lot of important stuff inbetween! But anyway, in the Cornish wills at least pre 1700, we have no such parallel as they were never copied into willbooks as they were later; rather the clerks simply filed the original wills that were handed in for probate.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jul 25, 2007 23:40:44 GMT -5
Oh, forget to mention two things: Some (but not all) of the early admons, were printed on a form, but that was because there was no will, and the clerks in the probate offices had to take down the info themselves from those who came in to file the intestacy. Also, you speak of the long 'preamble' in early wills. This was not something dreamed up by lawyers (can you imagine a lawyer urging a client to commit his soul into the hands of almighty God etc. etc.?) - this was just the normal protocal for the times. Everyone knew that in a will it was proper to mention that you may be 'sicke and weake' but still of 'good mynd and memorie', and no one contemplating death would dream of omitting the care of their soul to God thru Christ etc. Today, sadly, when wills are now drawn up exclusively by lawyers, we never see any of those nicities.
|
|
|
Post by Zenobia on Jul 26, 2007 0:38:13 GMT -5
Something occurred to me.... Transcripts can be tricky. Even my own: In that second Davy will the following bequests are listed: PHILIP d/o THOMAS QUICK 6 d. godchildren 6 d. apieceIt is very possible that the original might have read something like this: "I leave to Philipp, daughter of Thomas Quick 6 pence and I levae to the rest of my godchildren 6 pence each." I would like to think that if it did read that way, I would have recorded: PHILIP d/o THOMAS QUICK 6 d. rest of godchildren 6 d. apieceBut I cannot guarantee that I would have....
|
|