Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 16, 2007 15:46:57 GMT -5
Let us assume that the John Perry named in the Will of Thomas Michell in 1621 was the same man who left a Will and was buried at Zennor in 1675.
We might also assume that the 1611 Marriage of Jennet MICHELL was to Daniel PERRY given the new information that a son of Daniel (Nicholas) was baptised in Zennor in 1619.
If we refer back to the Will of Thomas Michell he named three PERRY grandsons (George, Thomas and John) but there was no Daniel and no Nicholas.
If we again assume that there was just the one Perry family active in Zennor at that time we have some possibilities to consider.
Nicholas did not survive to be included in his grandfather's Will. There was also a Daniel who did not survive and for whom there is no record. Daniel, for some reason, was a name later used in this family after Thomas Michell had made his Will.
In any event we know that Daniel was used as a name in this family a little later on.
We know that George, Thomas and John Perry were probably all born after 1611.
This means that the John Perry who died in 1675 is very likely from this family and we DO KNOW that he named a son DANIEL.
From his Will John Perry's wife was named JONE yet there was no surviving daughter of that name.
But possibly the most interesting name among his children was ALEXANDER.
ALEXANDER was bequeathed 1 pound, 15 shillings and 1 pence (plus one shilling) in his father's Will.
1 pound, 15 shillings and 1 pence - "which was given to him by his grandmother.
IS THIS A VITAL CLUE and, if so, can we find anything to suggest which grandmother left the lad this amount of money and why.
Although named first in his father's Will it does not necessarily mean he was the eldest son. Alexander may have been named first because of his Grandmother's legacy. It may well be that he received that legacy because he was incapacitated in some way.
Let's hope the grandmother, whoever she was, left a Will that can answer this question. That might also answer the question of the identity of John Perry's wife.
First of all, thanks to trencom for the additional and most welcome info!
Secondly I believe Murphy's 26th collerary of genealogical snafus is thus:
"In any given fragmented parish transcript, all extant baptisms of children for your family of interest will be children who died young..."
Given that Nicholas was born in 1619, and obviously did not survive, then John must have been b. late in 1620 early in 1621, or perhaps around 1616/17. Either would fit well for the man marrying first to Anne Udy in 1645, and afterward to a Joan.
I would suggest that Alexander may have indeed been the eldest child, and also the only child of Ann Udy and the grandmother in question was Ann's mother (who probably left the legacy after the death of her daughter). I really do believe, based on approximate ages for Honor and George, that they were probably Joan's children. Joan was left the tent. of Boswednack, and after her death it was to go to George, whose life was apparently on the estate from the wording.
Now, I have the will of John Perry right here, and the date of probate and the inventory are correct as in my abstract. The will was nuncupative and in the third person, so he obviously told his two witnesses (his wife and a certain John Thomas) of his wishes shortly before he died and they committed it to writing shortly afterward.
So it looks like he did indeed die 12 Aprl 1674, but the family was a little slow getting around to the probate, finally doing the inventory the following february and proving the will a year later.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 17, 2007 12:07:11 GMT -5
Not bad thinking '99'.
But I think you might be giving Trencrom a headache here as our friend will now be about to spend some considerable time with magnifying glass etc. to see if a similar result to the 'Danyell Perry' situation might be achieved.
But if the fragment identified is "...frett" then we could be looking at JENNIFRETT.
Another point is that I have been relying on Hoblyn's Marriage Transcript for 'JENNET'S' name.
But then Trencrom might like to take another look at the BT for that one also and see if any comparisons might be made.
Unfortunately I cannot do much better with this one, I have checked the letters concerned against other words on the same page, and it does appear to be as described. It is against a dark background and any preceding leters are not visible -- I'm not sure but it looks as if the left edge of the paper is curled over forwards at this point