Post by Cornish Terrier on Feb 23, 2019 4:27:14 GMT -5
Add daughter Ann who was named in her father's Will and probably born about 1706. The Parish Register is missing to 1720 and there are gaps between Bishops Transcripts but 1706 would seem the probable year. Ann married John Stevens of St Ives at Towednack in 1728 and was buried 16th September 1729 at St Ives on the same day her son William was baptized.
The last known child was a son named Israel who was also named in his father's Will - 'my son Israel if he do live to the age of 21'. No idea what happened to him.
Thanks CT for the separate tip on the Jane Quick discussion page that Elizabeth Quick (b. 1703/04) was the second wife of Joseph Cornish. This now leads to a more accurate death date for her being 1776 in Ludgvan some 33 years after Joseph's death in 1743 also in Ludgvan.
My interest however in the family of Jane & Elizabeth Quick is via their brother Paul (b.1692) who marries Wilmot Curnow 1 Apr 1718 - Towendack. I see that there is a whole section in the Forum dedicated to the Curnow family name but I want to stay focused on the Quick lineage that eventually leads to Paul Quick arriving in Ballart, Victoria and who marries Jane Sandford in 1863. (As an aside Janes's father George Thomas Sandford (b.1815) was a young convict who was sent to Port Arthur, Van Dieman's land in 1831 with a seven year sentence for stealing 3lbs pork. They sure were tough times back then.)
Anyway back to the Quicks. For Paul (b.1692) & Wilmot Curnow (b.1700 - Towendack) I have the following children: - Wilmot (1720) - Paul (1722) - John (1726) - Robert (1728) - [He's next in our line going on the marry Ann Mitchell in 1757 - Zennor] - James (1731) - Jane (1733)
How does this match up with any other Quick researchers??
Post by Cornish Terrier on Feb 23, 2019 23:18:26 GMT -5
That appears correct. I have everything in that line through to the grandchildren of Paul Quick/Jane Sandford although many of the details are the skeletal information as provided in the Victorian BDM Indexes.
In that case CT you'll have at the grandchildren level Marion Dorothy Quick who was my wife's Grandmother. She married a James Muir Johnston in 1928 in Melbourne. Marion died aged 103 in Berrigan NSW.
In respect of the Robert Quick (b.1728) & Ann Mitchell (b.1730 - Zennor) I seem to be OK with all my Children records which I've checked off against OPC so I'd just like to move onto James Quick (b.1766) and his wife Elizabeth Quick (b.1766).
I have a question about the mother of Elizabeth who I have noted as being Catharine Trewhela. I have it that her parents were Martin Trewhela (b.1695) and Catharine Bargwanath (b.1705) (m. Dec 1724). I can find at OPC two possible birth dates for a Catherine with parents Martin & Catharine namely: - 30 May 1725 (Towednack) & - 14 Mar 1726 (St Ives).
I tend to favour the 1725 option as it's Martine - with an "e" which matches the spelling in the OPC marriage transcription and that its a Towednack registration but having said that I don't want to simply ignore the record from 2 miles away in St Ives.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Feb 24, 2019 5:11:48 GMT -5
Peter, it seems you have a lot to learn about these old records!! First of all you need to ignore the spelling of the names, especially with transcriptions which are merely the result of what the transcriber can see and interpret from the page. The scribes themselves also had their little quirks and often came up with strange spellings. And often a name appearing on the page is the result of what the scribe 'heard' or 'thought' he heard from the person giving him the information. In many cases the Vicar would not have been a local so the broad West Country accents would have been difficult for them to understand. Hence I have seen more than 30 variations of the Trewhella name alone in these old records!!
So in actual fact Martin and Martine Trewhella were one and the same person!
Also be aware that a name like Catherine could appear as Cattran, Cathrine, Katherine, Cate, Kate, Kitty, Christian, Christiana and possibly other variations. And then there are the usual variations such as Molly or Polly for Mary - Meg or Maggie or Petty for Margaret etc., etc., etc.
One other thing to be aware of - MOST of the dates you see in these old records are for BAPTISM and NOT birth.
And where you see multiple children baptized on the same day you will find that in most cases these are NOT twins or triplets (or more!). Children were often born years apart and then baptized at the same time and I have seen examples of up to 10 children from the one family being baptized on the same day!! So ……. BEWARE!
The Catherine Trewhella who married James Quick was the second of the two - her baptism was entered in the St Ives Parish Register in 1726 - Catherine daughter of Martyn and Cath. Trewhela of Towednack 14th March
The first Catherine born to Martin and Catherine Trewhella did not live very long:-
Katharine daughter of Martine Trewhela and Katharine his wife baptized 30th May 1725 Towednack
Katharine daughter of Martin Trewhela was buried 24th January 1725 Towednack
ANOTHER NOTE - I always quote the Old Style dates as they were recorded in the original registers. The old Calendar began on 25th March and ended on 24th March so the above burial was actually 1726 by todays calendar. (Many people will record this as 24th January 1725/6 but that is not exactly correct either.)
Note also that the details for the second Catherine (as recorded above) would therefore be 14th March 1726/7 in todays terms.
You can find details about the changes from the old Julian to the modern Gregorian Calender by a google search. In essence the scholars determined that the calendar had not actually been accurate and that by the time of the change there had been 11 days 'lost'. I think it was in September of 1751 that the change was made in England and 11 days were skipped whilst at the same time the beginning of the year was changed to 1st January. I don't remember the exact date of the change but basically (as an example) September 10th would have become September 21st. The Calendars changed at different times in different parts of the World with some only changing in the early 1900s!
Best you google that and read it for yourself but that is about the gist of it.
I have often wondered about multiple baptisms same day. Were the parents too busy and needed to "catch up" when a new child was born, or was some sort of offering expected that might have been a financial struggle were they to have had the children baptized separately? When I think of my Sampson crew 16 it makes me wonder ? I know life wasn't easy, and I hope no one is offended by my question.
Last Edit: Feb 24, 2019 23:59:02 GMT -5 by zibetha
Well Zib .. from my research all I can say with great confidence is that there is no single answer. The various possibilities and vagaries are almost endless. Being too busy, lack or religious conviction, lay christenings or not having money to pay the fee were all reasons. Christenings at home by a minister attracted a greater fee than a church christening for instance and if a church was 5+ miles walk away it's not hard to see what might have happened.
Issues of private vs public baptisms also need to be considered. While the Church allowed for both public and private ceremonies, the general rule was that no child should be baptized twice. So they certainly discouraged lay baptism. However given that private baptisms were allowed they could be also be included in parish registers, So when people got around to it, the list of kids might end up with the baptism record being the day it was written down - not when it actually happened. That is, the date recorded was actually not the baptism but rather the date of the public reception of a previous private baptism.
As Boulton & Davenport (2013) note: "In fact a significant proportion (of parish records) must have been either home baptisms registered as public baptisms, or registrations of the public reception of children previously baptized at home."
Marriage recognition by the Church was probably another common reason. For instance in respect of marriage in the 17th Century the basic requirement for a legally valid marriage was not a formal consecration in a church, but the completion of a marriage contract, commonly called ‘spousals’.
Spousals were an act in which the bride and groom said their vows in the present tense. While often this procedure was accompanied by a church ceremony (banns) it wasn’t always the case.
Not having to go through a church ceremony made it possible for couples to marry secretly, without the knowledge of their parents. So in such circumstances secret marriages may have been problematic for some record keepers. Then later on down the track, with changed attitudes etc, there might have been a few kids backed up in the queue and they were accepted by the minister of the day for "processing".
Over in Ireland it appears that multiple baptisms was a reasonably common occurrence and I suspect it had more to do with poor families waiting for the priest to make it to their village rather than walking to a church building miles away.
One of my best examples in my tree is a Middlesex parish record of seven births (not baptisms) on a page within a parish register. They are grouped together at the end of the Baptism section probably because it was a page that was left bare after the last baptism recorded in 1752 in this particular book. These births were noted as being between 1744-1760. Then can you believe it three of these children are apparently baptised the same day in 1772. So whenever these birth details were written down (some time after 1760 - but importantly before 1772) the record keeper simply wrote the whole family down at the same time because there was the space.
As noted elsewhere in this Forum record keeping was at best hit and miss affair at the best of times.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Feb 25, 2019 11:42:12 GMT -5
I have often wondered about multiple baptisms same day.
I don't think there is any one true answer to this but certainly reasons such as remoteness would have played a part in many areas of Cornwall. Another for which there is documented evidence is the absence of the Vicar (Rosewall Depositions regarding a child of John Hingston having died unbaptized). Pure laziness might also have been a contributing factor in some cases but then there is also the possibility that a family was continually moving around and it became more convenient to baptize all children at once.
As for Private baptisms - they were usually performed for sickly children or at least for children who might not be expected to survive. Generally, although apparently not always, a private baptism would be followed by a public baptism for the child to be 'received into the Church'. And it was certainly not unusual for both events to be recorded in the Parish Register given it was usually the Vicar who did the baptizing in both cases.
And once Methodism came to Cornwall there are multitudes of cases of children being baptized more than once - there are records of children baptized in the Established Church and later in a Methodist Chapel. There are also records of non-conformist baptisms followed, sometimes years down the track, by the same children being baptized into the Established Church! You can also find examples of children being baptized twice in the Established Church. Perhaps this was a matter of 'forgetfulness' but on more than one occasion I have seen a record of baptism for a child and then several years later that same child is baptized in the same Church with a younger sibling.
I appreciate Peter's input on this but I do wonder if much of the information quoted is more to do with other parts of England. I note that Ireland is quoted in at least one instance but other than that my experience with Cornish records does not reflect the likes of Boulton & Davenport. And certainly some of the information on marriages is something I have never come across in Cornwall - 'Spousals' is an example of that having never heard the term at all!
There were laws passed against 'Clandestine Marriages' but they certainly happened in England. If I remember correctly that led to the Hardwicke Act of 1754 which resulted in the new marriage registers.
Primarily, at least in Cornwall, marriages were by Banns or by Licence. Marriage by Licence was fairly common for the Gentry types I think but generally in Cornwall a marriage by Licence involved at least one of the parties being from outside the Parish where the event was to take place.
I think the remoteness of Cornwall would have been a contributing factor in the differences to other parts of England as well.
I think the remoteness of Cornwall would have been a contributing factor in the differences to other parts of England as well.
CT is right in that my response above reflects my experience elsewhere around the UK and by comparison it sure seems that the Cornish were perhaps a little bit more thorough record keepers than other parts of the country. One example as I see it is the wonderful resource of Wills and Depositions that are available. Just a personal observation that may not be accurate but there you go ...
The remoteness of Cornwall sure would be a factor. Not only is it tucked down in a far corner of the mainland but it's also the only County that shares a boundary with only one other County. So "edge" effects as a result of different Counties having different protocols and processes etc were less of an issue.
Maps of Cornwall up to around late 1600's also seem to show Cornwall almost as separate jurisdiction similar I suppose to Wales.
Significantly also it must be remembered that Cornwall was a Royalist stronghold and so the ravages of the Civil War coupled with the significant religious upheavals that had significant impacts on record keeping in many parishes elsewhere around the country seems to have been less of an issue down in the West Penwith district. I'm not saying Cornwall was immune from the effects of war etc but relatively speaking I think it may have been a bit of a quieter life in Zennor or St Ives during this period than say Reading, Berkshire or Edge Hill, Warwickshire.
Thanks for the responses-- very helpful information. I also have an instance of two children being baptized at St John's Copperhouse in Phillack in 1856 as their (normal) Parish Church was under construction. They appear to have been mistakenly recorded under their parents' names-- not their own which would be understandable given the circumstances.
The fee information does make sense to me.
Last Edit: Feb 27, 2019 18:54:59 GMT -5 by zibetha
hi my late mother who died last year was a quick . she lived in penzance. heamoor and st buryans. her name was enid Maureen quick. she had several siblings. she was married 3 times. first one Allen (me) next Richards then curry. I will post name etc but I will have to consult my sister . I don t know if its prevalent in the quick family but she had a very rare blood group which I have AB neg. I know the basque people have a high rate of neg blood. I will put more info on if needed.
The family I have for Francis and Elizabeth is as follows:-
Paul - also no birth/baptism or marriage details but married his cousin Jane Quick and had about 9 children.
Just wondering if anyone has any information on this Jane Quick. I've come across some suggestions that she may have been born around 1644 to James Quick and Mary Knighte but I can't find any evidence in the Cornwall OPC Database to verify.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jun 15, 2019 13:59:55 GMT -5
Jane Quick was baptized at Zennor 18th March 1665 (Old Style) daughter of James Quicke (i.e. James Quick and Jane Knight) - information from the Bishops Transcripts.
In his Will written 5th February 1704 (OS) James Quick included the following:-
"Item - I give unto each of my sons Gabriell Quicke, John Quicke & James Quicke twelve pence & likewise to each of my daughters Grace the wife of John Roberts Jane ye wife of Paul Quicke & Zenobia the wife of Wm: Stevens twelve pence to be paid within one Month after my decease"
Where other records no longer exist this entry proves that it was indeed Jane daughter of James and Jane Quick who married Paul Quick sometime around 1690.