Post by Cornish Terrier on Apr 15, 2008 0:15:27 GMT -5
Because someone was recorded as being 'of (e.g.) St Ives' it does not necessarily mean they were born there.
It may merely refer to the fact that they had been resident there for some time.
It was only yesterday that it crossed my mind to place a posting regarding this scenario on the Board as it can become confusing and misleading.
Now, the Thomas you mention bp. 1759 Zennor s/o Thomas and Elizabeth can, I think, be discounted from all scenarios as per the following from Zennor Burials:-
Of their nine known children Thomas and Elizabeth lost at least four at the ages of 6, 17, 4 and 2.
Thomas (1747-1754)
John (1749-1777)
Thomas (1759-1763)
Anne (1761-1763)
I am fairly confident of my conclusions here regarding the Thomas of 1759 as he and Anne were buried on the same day - 15th July 1763 and were recorded as children of Thomas Quick.
Back to the old drawing board I am afraid.
But the 'sojourner' thing should be no problem - it basically means a person is more or less 'moving through'.
COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY
sojourn ..... v.i. originally, to stay for a day; to dwell for a time; to make a short stay;---n. a short stay; a temporary stay.---sojourner n. (L. sub, under; diurnus, of a day).
So usually when you see the word 'sojourner' beside a name (usually in marriage or burial records) the person is from elsewhere on a temporary visit. (Or what was meant to be a temporary visit in the case of a burial but became permanent ;D).
I have seen (in fact in the last few days) records of marriage where the term 'sojourner, of this place' has been used.
This would seem to indicate a person whose work required much travelling and allowed only short stays in any one place including the home Parish. (Much like an itinerant worker.)
Guess we best start looking again for another Thomas Quick to fit the bill.
It may merely refer to the fact that they had been resident there for some time.
It was only yesterday that it crossed my mind to place a posting regarding this scenario on the Board as it can become confusing and misleading.
Now, the Thomas you mention bp. 1759 Zennor s/o Thomas and Elizabeth can, I think, be discounted from all scenarios as per the following from Zennor Burials:-
1763
4 Jun 1763 Catharine Phillips, widow.
13 Jul 1763 Matthew Stevens
15 Jul 1763 Anne Quick, daughter of Thomas.
15 Jul 1763 Thomas Quick, son of Thomas.
23 Jul 1763 Zenobia Stevens
4 Jun 1763 Catharine Phillips, widow.
13 Jul 1763 Matthew Stevens
15 Jul 1763 Anne Quick, daughter of Thomas.
15 Jul 1763 Thomas Quick, son of Thomas.
23 Jul 1763 Zenobia Stevens
Of their nine known children Thomas and Elizabeth lost at least four at the ages of 6, 17, 4 and 2.
Thomas (1747-1754)
John (1749-1777)
Thomas (1759-1763)
Anne (1761-1763)
I am fairly confident of my conclusions here regarding the Thomas of 1759 as he and Anne were buried on the same day - 15th July 1763 and were recorded as children of Thomas Quick.
Back to the old drawing board I am afraid.
But the 'sojourner' thing should be no problem - it basically means a person is more or less 'moving through'.
COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY
sojourn ..... v.i. originally, to stay for a day; to dwell for a time; to make a short stay;---n. a short stay; a temporary stay.---sojourner n. (L. sub, under; diurnus, of a day).
So usually when you see the word 'sojourner' beside a name (usually in marriage or burial records) the person is from elsewhere on a temporary visit. (Or what was meant to be a temporary visit in the case of a burial but became permanent ;D).
I have seen (in fact in the last few days) records of marriage where the term 'sojourner, of this place' has been used.
This would seem to indicate a person whose work required much travelling and allowed only short stays in any one place including the home Parish. (Much like an itinerant worker.)
Guess we best start looking again for another Thomas Quick to fit the bill.