Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2008 14:11:31 GMT -5
I seem to have lost a posting so I will send another one. ;D
I have a Margaret Quick married to Matthew Quick 15 Dec 1750 at Lelant. Both people were Quicks.
I have a burial for Margaret for 24/4/1786 at St Ives but on reflection I think this is incorrect.
Lannanta
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 23, 2008 18:13:24 GMT -5
Do you have any particular reason for thinking you may be incorrect. Margaret was bp. 16th March 1728 at St Ives d/o James and Margaret (nee OSBORN) QUICK Matthew was bp. 6th March 1719 at St Ives s/o Isaac and Susanna (nee OATES) QUICK Matthew left a Will which was dated 30th March 1785 and proved 12th May 1785 and named his wife Margaret. So it is not unreasonable to accept that it was indeed this Margaret buried in 1786 - almost a year after her husband's Will was proved. BUT - having done the old 'double check' of my system I think I might now have to agree with your first suspicions. That Margaret might rather be the first wife of Thomas QUICK s/o Benedict and Mary. Thomas married Margaret BENNEY at St Ives in 1770 and had two children - Benedict in 1773 and Margaret in 1775. Thomas married Ann TONKIN at St Ives 6th July 1786 as a widower. Not many Margarets in the Quick family - but just enough to throw the odd small Sidchrome into the spokes every now and then. ;D Back to you my friend. (Got any more Margarets anywhere??)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2008 18:21:02 GMT -5
CT Actually yes. I have a will dated late 1803 and I am part way through sending it to you - definitely Margaret, the mother of teh two girls who married and Major and a Daniel. Lannanta
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2008 19:27:51 GMT -5
CT Margaret Quick wrote her will on the 13th December 1799, and then wrote a small codicil on the 1st November 1803. Admon was granted on the 7th May 1804, pointing to the burial dated the 18th November 1803 at St Ives. The Executrix's were Margaret Major and Jane Daniel, her daughters. The estate referred to was of course Hendra. Lannanta
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2008 1:52:30 GMT -5
CT
Try this ;D
Lannanta
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 24, 2008 3:26:33 GMT -5
Very useful document - and it means then that the 1786 burial was that of the first wife of Thomas QUICK. Having read through the Will it appears that Francis s/o John and Margaret MAJOR was deceased prior to the writing of the Will as he was the only grandchild not mentioned. BTW are you aware that it was Margaret QUICKs grandson John MAJOR who married Mary TREWHELA at St Ives 2nd November 1806. ;D After she was widowed in 1811 Mary then married Richard STEVENS at St Ives 14th November 1812. CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 29, 2008 7:05:18 GMT -5
Lannanta - seems we have one or two Margaret QUICKs in excess of requirements! ;D Burials at St Ives:- 15th July 1775 30th September 1775 24th April 1786 age 56 All others in the list you sent me are taken care of except for one at Stratton, one at Gwennap (think I know who she was) and two at Paul who frm no part of this problem. One of the above burials must be that of Margaret (nee BENNEY) first wife of Thomas QUICK who later married Ann TONKIN. Margaret was possibly the one baptised at St Ives 16th September 1732 d/o Henry and Elizabeth BINNY. That puts her at 54 in 1786 and very close to match the 1786 burial which occurred just short of three months before Thomas remarried. A reasonable argument in favour of her. But the two burials recorded for 1775 are curious considering the conflicting information we have. You may remember that information I had received several years ago suggested that Thomas and Margaret baptised at daughter 15th July 1775 - the same date as that first burial. Others seem to suggest that the burial on that date was the wife of Thomas QUICK. BUT - what if both burials are a part of this scenario. Let us say, for example, that Margaret (nee BENNEY) DID have a daughter and that this daughter was baptised on the same day that Margaret was buried. And then let us suppose that the child did not survive and that it was her who was buried just a couple of months later on 30th September 1775. Appears reasonable to me and would not be the first time a child's baptism was not recorded because it occurred on the same day as the burial of a parent. But we are still left with another Margaret - just who was she!! Your thoughts??
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2008 3:46:29 GMT -5
CT
To be perfectly honest, and given the data that I have in front of me, I have no idea.
Your assumptions make sense, but the absence of the baptism prevents me getting too excited over them.
Margaret Benney perhaps died in 1775 as you suggest it being a possibility, and such a date explains why there are no other children, with the exception of Benedict, who is the only child mentioned in the will of Thomas.
Or Margaret died in 1786 a few months prior to Thomas getting married for a second time. This leaves a bit of a question concerning so few children, but maybe the death of a daughter Margaret had some medical complications preventing further children.
I think that based on what I have it is best for me to leave the Margarets until some later date.
Lannanta
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 30, 2008 6:18:35 GMT -5
Agreed - but remember that it is not the first time this kind of problem has arisen.
Most times we have a baptism and burial on the same day but there are occasions when, although both events occurred, there was only evidence of oe being recorded
Perhaps we need to see if there is another Margaret lurking about!
In fact, it appears there must be another UNLESS ......
There is one further possibility - the earlier 1775 event was actually the baptism of the daughter with her being buried just a couple of months later in which case the 1786 event would certainly be that of Thomas QUICKs wife.
That, perhaps, is he more logical answer given that Margaret was quite an uncommon name in the QUICK family back then.
For later thought.
|
|