Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2008 13:39:30 GMT -5
Hi Ian
I was wondering if you were familiar with two Thomas's - first the husband of Jane CARNARTHEN, married in 1732 in Lelant and also the husband of Elizabeth STEVENS, married 1747 in Zennor. I would like to know where they trace themselves back to please?
Lannanta
|
|
|
Post by myghaelangof on Mar 7, 2008 4:01:17 GMT -5
Hello all, I cant assist re Thomas, but I also have a Carnarthen query if anyone has been researching this name. In 1686 Phillack, Arundell Shakerley (see earlier Madron postings) married Katherine Carnarthen. She was the widow of of William Carnarthen who came to Phillack from the Illogan district around 1650. In his will William was described as a miller. I do not have the original source material on these facts as the research goes back quite a few years to another family member. I would like to find more about the Carnarthen's as it may lead to more discoveries on my Shakerley side. Arundell may have been born circa 1605-10 St Just, or a hitherto unknown family member. I shall be off to Cornwall at Easter, albeit Saltash, for an embracing week of Tribute and parsties. (No HSD Ian it is a quick death ) Hope all are well on the board. Best wishes Mike
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 7, 2008 13:28:57 GMT -5
Lannanta and Mike - will see what I can find for you both. As for Mike - - seems you may have already been on the HSD given you cannot spell It was always Pasties (not parsties) before I had a sample of the local ... And as you are only venturing across the border into Cornwall as far as Saltash I might be thinking ....... ;D Have fun and I will see what I can find. (At least you are going to Cornwall. ) Ian
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 7, 2008 13:49:19 GMT -5
The Thomas Quick who married Jane Canarthen was, I believe, born sometime after 1706 as son of Benedict Quick ad Prudence (nee VARRYAN). He was a cordwainer, of St Ives, when he married Jane at Lelant in 1732 and was buried at St Ives 16th November 1767. This Thomas wrote his Will 27th August 1767 and it was proved 24th April 1769. The Thomas who married Elizabeth STEVENS at Zennor in 1747 was bp. 30th Aprl 1716 at Zennor s/o John QUICK and Anne (nee VIBERT) and was buried at Zennor 13th March 1799. Will try and pursue this further for you later but, just now, my keyboard has found its meandering ways and keeps moving around under my well-intentioned typing fingers. Hope this is of help for now and will do what I can to assist further asap. Ian
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 8, 2008 16:00:41 GMT -5
Hi Ian
I had come to a similar conclusion to you, however I was concerned that there was no apparent son named Benedict to Thomas and Jane. Maybe he did exist and is not counted in the IGI. I will keep looking just in case.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 9, 2008 12:00:43 GMT -5
If there was a son named Benedict then I am yet to find a record of him. This does not mean that there was not a son of that name - however- given the family seemed to be mostly St Ives then I would have expected to find a burial record (even if current information shows no Baptism). If there was a son of that name still surviving I would have normally expected to have seen him mentioned in the Will. But - I have seen Wills where a son is still living but has not been mentioned. I would appreciate comment on this as I believe I have seen this a few times. As for Benedict (as a son) I will have to look into that a little later as I do not believe I have anything readily available that might help. It is very interesting, though. Ian
|
|
|
Post by myghaelangof on Mar 9, 2008 13:42:33 GMT -5
Ian, Lannanta, and Allen , I have come across several situations where it appears that a son has been bestowed with wealth or housing prior to his fathers death. If the will is subsequently written I assume this would be a just cause for excluding him from the will. I have also found situations where the eldest son inherits, eg one shilling, and subsequent children seem to get the earth. Again I assume in these cases that this son has already had his share, maybe in the form of assets to take over a family business, or to run a family. I certainly subscribe to the thought that if he's not named in the will, it doesnt mean he's no longer around (or never been around!). Benedict is out there waiting to be found. On burials, bear in mind the fate of mariners - they could be buried anywhere, or nowhere. Best wishes Mike (started to get back into things after a hectic start to the year)
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 10, 2008 11:23:21 GMT -5
I am beginning to think that a 'fixation' on finding a son named Benedict may not be fruitful. It is, of course, possible that there 'may have been' a son of this name who had already received his inheritance prior to his father's death. However, it would be (to my thinking) logical that some mention may have been made in his father's Will - given said son was still living. However, I believe I have stated that I can find no record of a burial for a Benedict who may have been the son in question and this son was not mentioned in the Will. I would still keep an open mind, though, in case something happes to turn up to help our cause. I must say that I have seen Wills where an 'expected' name did not appear and this has been reflected through the Parish Registers which showed that no child of the 'expected name' was baptised to the Testator. It is interesting thought that Thomas and Jane did name a daughter Prudence. It appears to me that they have named their first child (a son) after his father Thomas, the next child (a daughter) after mother Jane and they then had a daughter named Prudence who would surely have been named after Thomas Quick's mother. The first son (Thomas for whom I have found no baptism) was buried at St Ives in 1733. After Prudence came another son who was then named Thomas. Following this I have record of three further children - John (1742-1742), John (1744) and Ann (1747). I may need to try and dig out my Quick Wills again to confirm all of this but I am confident my database would have been updated should I have found further information. NOW FOR MIKE'S QUERY re Canarthen and Shakerley. Mike - I have William Canarthen marrying 'Katherine' sometime before 1658 along with a list of six children. William (1659-1731) married Mary COCK at Phillack in 1695 Anna (1661- ?) Jasper (1664-1732) married Catherine HAMPTON sometime before 1650 Phillip (1667-1681) John (1670- ?) Mary (1673- ?) William was buried at Phillack 6th February 1684. Katherine then married Arundell SACKERLY at Phillaci 3rd May 1686. That is all I currently know. One thing I can add is that William CANARTHEN (1696) s/o William CANARTHEN and Mary COCK (and, therefore, grandson of William and Katherine) was married at Phillack in December 1723 to Mary TREWHELLA who was a daughter of my ancestor Martine TREWELLA who married Alse PHILLIPS at Zennor in 1688. Let us try and work on this some more as I get time and opportunity. Anything you find out would be welcome in my inbox for review. Best I can do for now. Time to have a break and watch a few episodes of Star Trek before I head off to bed to rest before work again. Ian
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2008 15:09:34 GMT -5
Good morning Ian
I agree that a fixation for Benedict may be of little value. I was just a little surprised that after naming two children,Thomas & Jane, after the parents, then a daughter, Prudence, after a grandmother, that the next son did not follow the pattern and be named after either of the grandfathers - I think both Benedicts in this case - rather they chose John. I would think that such a departure was not necessarily out of the norm so time to move on.
Would you agree that the Andrew who married Honor THOMAS in 1745 at Lelant was the son of Andrew and Mary OSBORN of Zennor?
Live long and prosper
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 10, 2008 15:51:40 GMT -5
Blimey - More Cans Of Worms Firstly - I meant to mention in a reply to an earlier note that my own ancestor Martin Trewhella (m. Alse Phillips 1688 at Zennor) was a little interesting also. Their first child (a son) was named William - a name (to my knowledge) not used by the family (certainly in that area) before. The second child was THOMAS and this gave the clue as to the parentage of Martin. The third child was MARY - a name that I had previously not seen at all in the family. Then came Martin, Martin, Alice, Jane, Christopher (also interesting but to be dealt with in another thread), Catherine and Catherine. Martin and Alice seem to obviously refer to the parents whilst the Catherine's at the end have been determined to represent the mother of Martin. But it is also curious that there was no son named FRANCIS given that was the name of ALSE's father. Jane fits in as that was the name of the mother of ALSE. (As stated CHRISTOPHER needs to be dealt with later and, I think, has already had some mention in the Towednack Thread.) It is the names of WILLIAM and MARY (in this case) that are most interest - especially given the era. With no history of the names of WILLIAM ot MARY in either family - then why do they suddenly turn up as PRIMARY names. It has been determined (and I give Zenobia more credit) between Zenobia and myself that the answer lies in the (then) Monarchy. We are looking at a time when WILLIAM of Orange had recently been crowned King of England and his wife was named MARY. But I have digressed in my tiredness. Short answer is 'Yes'. But the marriage occurred at Lelant, Andrew (husband of Honor) was baptised at St Ives, Andrew's parents were married at Zennor, his father was baptised at Towednack etc. But they do traverse via Towednack and back to Zennor to Thomas and Zenobia. May I have an easy question next time - Please. Ian
|
|
|
Post by myghaelangof on Mar 10, 2008 17:39:43 GMT -5
Thanks Ian for the info on William Canarthen. I wonder, should I move my query to Phillack, or to my Arundell Shakerley line in Madron, or now we have another Alice Phillips, maybe to Anne's Phillips line in Zennor...
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Mar 11, 2008 10:41:06 GMT -5
I thought I asked for an 'easy query' next time. We do seem to be all over the shop at the moment with this one and Kathie is still not able to join in just yet. So we have a problem that we need to 'resolve on the run'. We do not appear to have enough to create another entry in 'Surnames of General Interest' so must really look at either Parishes or Queries. Queries is probably not good as I think that is more a starting point for new members to find their way. We have a conundrum here. How about, for now:- 1. Stick with the main Thread you are working with. 2. For each Parish of interest place a note referring back to the main thread. 3. For each Name of interest (given we have the section for it) do the same thing. 4. Once we get some responses and further information we might be able to determine the most appropriate place for all queries. At least this way people will know that there may be something going on and will be able to find their way to the relevant section. Once Kathie is back on board I am sure she will be able to sort out something a little more suitable. We do not need to clutter this forum with too many sections to view so let us work on things this way just for now. Time for Star Trek and food and beer. ;D Ian
|
|