James Quick joiner of St Ives

[Deleted]

CT

Although it states that the will of James Quick, joiner of St Ives, is dated 1835, it actually relates to an earlier date of death, however that in itself is also confusing.

Firstly, there is no will, rather just an obligation on Robert Quick, son of James Quick.

Secondly, on the front page it states:
St Ives
24th June 1835
Bond upon the admon of the goods etc of James Quick, joiner, deceased, granted to Robert Quick the son and next of kin of the deceased.
Effects under 100 pounds.
Died 24th June 1814.

Now, given that the admon was granted some 20 or so years after the death, there is the possibility that the date of death is wrong. I have a burial in my database for a James dated 26th June 1812, which may be the same man as above.

Your thoughts.

Lannanta

[Cornish Terrier]

Perhaps I should not have asked!

Out of the 'quag' and into the 'mire' again.

What I thought might be a chance to help solve the mystery of one of the James QUICKs has turned out to be just the opposite and seems to be creating more confusion.

I see the similarities you alude to between the date of death as recorded on the oblig. note nad the burial at St Ives in 1812.

But THAT burial was 'supposed' to have been that of the husband of Susannah LEE.

As you know I have not, for quite some time now, been happy about the details regarding James and Susannah.

A few comments while I think and I hope I do not confuse you too much but ....

We still have a few James Quicks 'out on a limb' and we don't really seem to have enough baptisms to cater for them - certainly not at St Ives where almost all of these seem to be linked.

The James who married Susannah LEE was a 'Harbour Master' - but how do I know that?

Because 'someone many years ago TOLD me he was'!

On having another look at what I know of this James I can say that I can find no information other than what I was told that states he was a Harbour Master.

So - does that mean that my informant (or even their informant) has seen the Maker PR and that this was the occupation recorded at marriage??

Or is there something else we are missing to indicates this>>

Supposing it really was his occupation then:-
Just because he was a harbour master and baptised two children at St Ives I can not see that it necessarily means he was 'of St Ives' or born/baptised there.

He was married at Maker which is right opposite Plymouth and we have Cawsand Bay, Plymouth Sound and more.

And apart from baptising two daughters at St Ives this whole family seems to disappear completely off the radar.

Then we have James 'of St Ives' who married Mary HUMPHRIES 'of St Ives' at Falmoth in 1774.

Five children baptised at St Ives from 1779 to 1796 Including Ann in 1779 and Ann in 1783.

No burial for the first Ann, nothing more on son Francis or son Matthew and son James who I am almost sure can be eliminated from consideration in a couple of later events.

In effect this whole family disappears also.

James who married Ann TONKYN has just about got a home now as does James who married Martha PEARCE.

And that brings us back to James the joiner.

At least we know something about this particular James even though it is far from enough.

We know:-
He was a 'joiner'.
He had five children baptised at St Ives between 1790 and 1805.
Of those sons Robert and Paul married at St Ives and had children.
He was certainly deceased by 1835 but according to the oblig. note died in 1814.
There is no burial at St Ives for him in 1814 so it is 'possible' that the date should be 1812.

Thinking about the oblig. note now and it is possible we may be one small step closer to identifying his wife Jane.

On 24th June 1835 Robert, his son, is named as 'next of kin' which means that Jane has also died.
I might suggest also that Robert was now the eldest surviving child which means that daughter Jane (possibly) and sonJames were also deceased.

There is a burial at St Ives 7th May 1835 for a Jane QUICK age 71.

With the Administration happening in June, just a month after this, I would suggest that this is almost certainly the widow of James and mother of Robert.

If so then she was born about 1764.

Getting too tired to think about this now so I will finish with one comment.

The first two children of James and Jane were named after themselves - Jane and then James - whilst the fifth child, John, could have been anyone.

But the other two sons are potentially the most helpful to us if we can only find the link - ROBERT and PAUL.

Will think about it some more tomorrow.

[Deleted]

CT

I thought you would be impressed. ;D

I wonder of the reason why the Obligation took twenty years or so - perhaps due to the death of Jane, I guess we will never know. However it does seem to fit quite nicely, with that Jane being 71.

However, I was a bit remiss in my report of the will etc. The bond referred to three men, first and formost Robert Quick, son etc. Also Peter Curnow and a name hard to decipher but looks like John Pasham.

Lannanta

[Cornish Terrier]

I have decided to take a night off and refresh the 'little grey cells'.

Just watched an episode of Wycliffe and may watch another one or two after a Miss Marple movie I think.

But I will leave you with a couple of thoughts about old James QUICK of the 1835 Admon.

Occupation - 'joiner'
Children - Jane, James, ROBERT, PAUL and John
Wife - Jane who was possibly buried at St Ives in 1835 age 71 (birth about 1764)

Other points of interest:-
Admon. granted only weeks after the burial of the Jane mentioned above.
Date of death as recorded on Admon. 24th June 1814
No Burial recorded at St Ives to match this - however there is a burial 26th June 1812.

Forgetting the year component this last burial is two days after the recorded day and month of death and therefore must be considered as a 'possible match' given the Admon. was over twenty years later.

IF the 1812 burial is the 'actual match' and the year of death on te admon. is incorrect then the lid on the can of worms is opened a little further.

The man buried in 1812 was recorded as being 54 years old which would place his birth about 1758.

This same burial has already been 'allocated' by other researchers to the James who married Susannah LEE.

The only baptism for a James QUICK that we have and could be considered a 'close match' is that of the son of James and Mary in 1760.

Again this baptism has previously been assigned to the man who married Susannah LEE.

Oh - there actually is another - James s/o Henry and Elizabeth bp. 11th February 1759 at Ludgvan.

I must keep this one in mind for later on.

** The more I look at the problem of these James QUICKs the more I think that James and Susannah just do not belong. **

Now - James of 1835 was a 'joiner' as were sons Robert and Paul.

I know we have more than one Quick, in particular Robert Quicks, who were joiners but ...

Given a 'possible' year of birth and the fact that James was indeed a 'joiner' then I think that this man is another who must be considered as possibly having been the son of James and Mary QUICK and, therefore, grandson of James QUICK of Borallan.

That means we now have at least three possibilities for the same baptism.

Have a Happy and Safe ChristmasNew Year - I will do some more thinking on this in your absence.

CT

[Deleted]

CT

Given a 'possible' year of birth and the fact that James was indeed a 'joiner' then I think that this man is another who must be considered as possibly having been the son of James and Mary QUICK and, therefore, grandson of James QUICK of Borallan.

Just to refresh this thread I am going to propose that your statement above is correct.

Lannanta

[Cornish Terrier]

Okay - so that once again leaves the husband of Susannah LEE out on a limb and requiring further attention.

One thing we know about James Quick the joiner is that he named sons Robert and Paul so it would seem probable that he is from the St Ives and Towednack area whereas the other bloke has not been much help at all.

I am sure we will be discussing this one further.

BTW - I will probably be sending you an email regarding yet another James Quick.

This one was at Gunnislake/Calstock but had some dealings with Gwennap!

Standby.

CT

[Cornish Terrier]

Lannanta et al - at last some news on the family of James QUICK and Susannah LEE!

But THAT burial was 'supposed' to have been that of the husband of Susannah LEE.

As you know I have not, for quite some time now, been happy about the details regarding James and Susannah.

A few days ago I decided to make email contact with the OPC for Illogan, David Crocker, to ask if he might be able to lookup a couple of entries at Illogan regarding the QUICK family that Lannanta has just begun looking into.

There will be more on that but it appears that the bulk of them originate from Gwennap.

However - In one of my first responses from David he gave what little information he could find at short notice and amongst this information was the following baptism:-

p. 171 Quick, Andrew s. of James & Susanna -- Born March 26th -- Apr 30, 1809

This was right 'out of the blue' and immediately sparked my interest given I know of only one marriage between a James QUICK and anyone named Susannah.

It appeared obvious this must be our man who baptised two children at St Ives at the start of the 19th Century.

But the main significance did not immediately strike me.

David informed me that he would like to help further but it would be delayed as he was going away for about a week.
I duly decided to wait until he returned but utilise the other information he had provided in the meantime.

But then yesterday I received an unexpected email from David - and this time things really did become interesting.

Now for many years I have had no option but to believe that James QUICK had been born at Towednack in 1760 s/o James and Mary.

But I had become increasingly certain that this could not be correct yet could find no other logical home for James - UNTIL NOW!! ;D

David provided two crucial pieces of information yesterday that finally indicated where James actually belongs.

Herewith a combination of all information with the information from David in bold lettering:-

James QUICK, harbour master, married Susannah LEE of Totnes, Devon 28th July 1800 at Maker

Mary d/o James and Susannah bp. 31st July 1803 at St Ives
Susannah d/o James and Susannah bp. 11th March 1804 at St Ives
James s/o James and Susanna bp. 29th September 1806 at Illogan
Andrew s/o James and Susanna born March 26th and bp. April 30th 1809 at Illogan

James QUICKE age 38 buried 28th November 1810 at Illogan

James and Susannah's first child was a daughter whom they named Mary.
Working on the 'old theory' it is to be expected that, in all probability, she was named after the mother of James.

The next child, also a daughter, was named Susannah and obviously after her mother. This lends further credence to the thought that Mary was named for the mother of James.

We now know of two further children - both sons.

The first of these was named James and there are two possibilities here.
1. The father of James was also James Quick and the son was named for them both.
2. James' father was of another name and this son was named for himself.

But the 'clincher' is the name of the second son!

It is possible that 1. above is correct and that Andrew was the name of Susannah's father and this is still a possibility given I do not yet have any details on her birth.

But I will argue that Andrew was actually named for his grandfather.

Doing a bit of arithmetic - we have James QUICK buried at Illogan in 1810 (November to be precise) at the age of 38.

This equates to a birth of about 1772 or 1773.

My conclusion is that James QUICK was the following:-

James s/o ANDREW and MARY QUICK baptised 4th April 1773 at St Ives

Nothing more has, until now, been found for James since his baptism and, likewise, nothing further had been found for the family of James and Susannah either before their marriage or after the baptism of their second child at St Ives - they simply appeared to vanish.

I do believe that I can say with reasonable confidence that this is yet ANOTHER PROBLEM SOLVED! ;D

Still work to be done to find what happened to James' widow and the children but .....

CT

PS - A Special Thanks to David E Crocker, OPC for Illogan, for his willingness to help and his having done so.

[Deleted]

CT

I had a look at Susannah Lee and her possible existence in Totnes, Devon. I found the baptisms of four siblings of John and Mary (nee Harding) Lee that are of interest at Totnes:
Catherine 1771
John 1775
Susannah 1776; and wait for it -
Nicolas in 1769.

It is therefore likely that the Nicholas born on 22 Dec 1810 is the son of the James and Susannah that is of interest to us.

Lannanta