This Edmund Nicholas left a Will in 1661 of which I only have the barest details. ... Will proved 21st November 1661 Edmund NICHOLAS of Sennen
Charity HARVEY Jane BOTTRELL Jone VINGOE
I realise this is an older thread but if you still have the relevant references, I wanted to confirm the statement above.
You stated that Charity Harvey, Jane Bottrell and Jone Vingoe are sisters of the Edmund Nicholas whose will is proved 1661.
However there are various references on the web (that appear to originate with an OPC for Sennen) which state that the Joan Nicholas who married John Vingoe was, with her sisters Jane Bottrell and Charity Harvey, all the daughters of Edmund Nicholas whose will is dated/proved 1662 (sic).
I can see the possibility for both scenarios - the only difference being who was the writer of the will.
There is a John Nyclis who married 4 Jun 1582 at Ludgvan to Elizabeth ?? This couple (under various spellings inc.: Nycholl, Nyclis, Nycholas) seem to have had a large family: Harry 1582, John 1584, Edmund 1586, Richard 1587, Jenet 1592, William c1593 (bur 1593), and Mychell 1597.
The Edmund baptised 1586 has been suggested by the Vingoe researchers as the father of the Joan Nicholas who married John Vingoe (c.1580-1656) as she was apparently much younger than her husband and possibly his second or third wife. Joan died 1685 and is suggested to have been born around 1615 based on estimated births of their children (1630's through 1650's).
At this stage I have no idea of the source of the Vingoe researcher's claim that Joan (nee Nicholas) Vingoe was the daughter of an Edmund Nicholas other than the references to the 1662 (sic) will of Edmund Nyclis, wherein they attribute the will as the source of the three married sisters being the daughters of the Edmund Nicholas who made the will.
Based on dates alone, it seems reasonable the Edmund Nicholas born 1586 could well have been the father of Joan (Vingoe) reputed to be born around 1615 since it would reasonable to expect him to be married by that time. Indeed he could well have married up to a decade or more earlier.
Now to my mind it is also plausible that Edmund (bap. 1586) on the assumption (yes I know, no proof currently known ) that he had one or more sons would have named one of them Edmund and this Edmund Junior could well have been born as early as 1608-1612. And this theoretical Edmund Jnr may be the actual author of the will of 1661. If this was the case, then the theoretical Edmund Jnr, as father of William Nicholas, is possibly the grandfather of the Edmund Nicholas who married Margaret Daniels.
The key question is which interpretation of the will is correct (or are both?). Are Charity HARVEY, Jane BOTTRELL and Jone VINGOE named as sisters of the Edmund Nicholas who made the will or are they named as Edmund's daughters.
Or are there references to indicate one or more of the three are indeed daughters of an Edmund, but also sisters of an Edmund?
Post by Cornish Terrier on Apr 8, 2015 0:09:54 GMT -5
Unfortunately I don't have a coy of the original nor a complete abstract of the Will of Edmund Nicholas - all I have are handwritten notes from a phone conversation many years ago listing the beneficiaries of that Will. What is intriguing is that I can find no reference to this Will in the CRO Catalogue or in the PCC Wills so perhaps the Archdeaconry of St Buryan had jurisdiction.
I cannot unscramble any of the confusion but here is what I have:-
Edmund Nicholas of Sennen Dated 21st November 1661 (I presume this is the date written as the Vingoe site quotes 1662)
daughter - Jane daughter - Grace daughter - Beaton
wife - Grace ...............| son - Thomas .............| - tenement of Treborian daughter - Elizabeth ....|
daughter - Alice (Eliza?) Paul
Parish of Ludgvan 2 shillings Parish of Sennen (or Zennor?) 1 shilling
son - William (named last so I presume he is Executor)
Witnesses - John Harvey, Richard Williams, Ralph Jeffery
Note - in the first group there is 'sister' Jane Bottrell and then the first daughter named after the unnamed grandchildren is Jane. Without seeing a copy of the original it is not possible to determine which of the two versions is correct.