Post by Zenobia on Oct 15, 2007 18:14:30 GMT -5
Today on the Curnow Board, Trencrom put forth some arguments on the possible age of Thomas Curnow, the progenitor of the Towednack family. In the course of doing so, he pointed out some potential problems with the Baragwanath chronology. Here is the summary of that, which I will then address:
The other argument you raised for questioning the 1588 St Keverne christening as being that of Thomas of 1643 pertains to the Baragwanath family, who intermarried with the Curnows, on the grounds that Thomas of 1588 would not have been old enough to have had a son who in turn married a Baragwanath daughter living as early as 1610. The will of Bawlden James of Zennor in that latter year mentions both a Mary Baragwanath and her sister as being daughters of a John B. But is this John B. the same John B. who mentions his grandchildren in his will of 1657? As you have pointed out, some of these grandchildren were stated therein to be the children of a John Curnow, who in turn was probably a son of Thomas of 1643 and whose (i.e. John Curnow's) wife appears from the said will to have been also named Mary.
Again, if we knew for certain that the Mary B. and her sister who are named in Bawlden James' will were only very little children in 1610, then it would become quite likely on chronological grounds that the John of the 1657 will (which was proven in 1660) must be their father John. However if they were significantly older then there is more than enough time for there to have been an intervening generation of Baragwanaths born in the 47 years between these two wills. In other words, these two John Baragwanaths (John of 1610 and John of 1657-60) may not be one and the same man. Bawlden James does not spell out his relationship to many -- if not most -- of the beneficiaries in his will, and so for all we know to the contrary he and the John B. that he names could have been of the same generation. If this was the case, then the Mary B of 1610 would be too old to qualify as being also the Mary B. whose name was crossed out in the 1657 will.
There’s also a further chronological issue concerning the Baragwanath family that needs addressing if the identification of the John B. of 1657-60 with the John B. of 1610 is correct. William Baragwanath married Jane Curnow in 1696, and he has been allocated by several researchers into this family as being the son of the Richard Baragwanath who in turn was named in the said will of 1657 as a son of the testator John B. Now I do not know whether there is any evidence for this placing of William other than the onomastic argument involving the name of his (William's) second son, but, having said that, I do get the impression that the Baragwanaths were a numerically much smaller family than the Curnows, and hence I’m not too sure what the alternatives would be, or if indeed if there are any. What I would feel fairly confident about though is that William could not be the grandson of a man who had fathered a minimum of two children before 1610.* If William married at, say, aged 27 then he would have been born c. 1669. We have christenings of two of Richard's children, in 1664 and 1679, and clearly there were others, including perhaps William, in the interim: assuming a child was born every two years, then there is room for at least seven such, hence potentially nine all up. However this range of dates for Richard's children suggests to me that Richard himself must have rather young in 1657 when his father died. Hence if their placing as grandchildren of John B. of 1657 is correct, then I would have to question whether the John B of 1610 is the same man or of the same generation as the John B of 1657.
* To use a modern comparison, I really don’t think that a man who married in the year of the Atlanta Olympics (1996) would have had (at least) two aunts born while Edward VII was still alive (i.e. pre-1910). Great-aunts, yes, certainly, but not aunts.
The other argument you raised for questioning the 1588 St Keverne christening as being that of Thomas of 1643 pertains to the Baragwanath family, who intermarried with the Curnows, on the grounds that Thomas of 1588 would not have been old enough to have had a son who in turn married a Baragwanath daughter living as early as 1610. The will of Bawlden James of Zennor in that latter year mentions both a Mary Baragwanath and her sister as being daughters of a John B. But is this John B. the same John B. who mentions his grandchildren in his will of 1657? As you have pointed out, some of these grandchildren were stated therein to be the children of a John Curnow, who in turn was probably a son of Thomas of 1643 and whose (i.e. John Curnow's) wife appears from the said will to have been also named Mary.
Again, if we knew for certain that the Mary B. and her sister who are named in Bawlden James' will were only very little children in 1610, then it would become quite likely on chronological grounds that the John of the 1657 will (which was proven in 1660) must be their father John. However if they were significantly older then there is more than enough time for there to have been an intervening generation of Baragwanaths born in the 47 years between these two wills. In other words, these two John Baragwanaths (John of 1610 and John of 1657-60) may not be one and the same man. Bawlden James does not spell out his relationship to many -- if not most -- of the beneficiaries in his will, and so for all we know to the contrary he and the John B. that he names could have been of the same generation. If this was the case, then the Mary B of 1610 would be too old to qualify as being also the Mary B. whose name was crossed out in the 1657 will.
There’s also a further chronological issue concerning the Baragwanath family that needs addressing if the identification of the John B. of 1657-60 with the John B. of 1610 is correct. William Baragwanath married Jane Curnow in 1696, and he has been allocated by several researchers into this family as being the son of the Richard Baragwanath who in turn was named in the said will of 1657 as a son of the testator John B. Now I do not know whether there is any evidence for this placing of William other than the onomastic argument involving the name of his (William's) second son, but, having said that, I do get the impression that the Baragwanaths were a numerically much smaller family than the Curnows, and hence I’m not too sure what the alternatives would be, or if indeed if there are any. What I would feel fairly confident about though is that William could not be the grandson of a man who had fathered a minimum of two children before 1610.* If William married at, say, aged 27 then he would have been born c. 1669. We have christenings of two of Richard's children, in 1664 and 1679, and clearly there were others, including perhaps William, in the interim: assuming a child was born every two years, then there is room for at least seven such, hence potentially nine all up. However this range of dates for Richard's children suggests to me that Richard himself must have rather young in 1657 when his father died. Hence if their placing as grandchildren of John B. of 1657 is correct, then I would have to question whether the John B of 1610 is the same man or of the same generation as the John B of 1657.
* To use a modern comparison, I really don’t think that a man who married in the year of the Atlanta Olympics (1996) would have had (at least) two aunts born while Edward VII was still alive (i.e. pre-1910). Great-aunts, yes, certainly, but not aunts.
), I did not think that the John Baragwanath referred to was the same man who died in 1657. It was only after getting in touch with Ian again recently that I became convinced.
