Which Mary Quick?

[gandolf]

Having finally finished off the descendants of Andrew Rosewall (died 1680) including the miriad Quick descendants, I hoped when I moved onto Andrew's brother James and his descendants I might be able to avoid the Quicks. ;D

But surprise, surprise! You can't keep the Quick family down it seems.

One of James Rosewall's great grandsons was Thomas Rosewall, christened 1754 at St. Ives.

Thomas Rosewall married 1782 at St. Ives to Mary Curnow. Mary was christened 1758 at Towednack, the daughter of Sampson Curnow and Mary Quick.

Sampson is not a problem. He was the son of John & Mary (nee Thomas) Curnow, grandson of Peter & Jane (nee Harris) Curnow, and great-grandson of Robert & Catherine (nee Painter) Curnow.

Given that Robert Curnow, brother of Sampson's grandfather married Wilmot Rosewall and two of their children married Quicks, it is quite possible that Mary Quick is a second cousin to her husband Sampson Curnow.

My problem is that at the moment I cannot correctly place Mary Quick. So if someone else has sorted it out, I would be most interested to hear.

[Cornish Terrier]

Right at this very moment I have this particular Mary QUICK as 'unattached'.

She and Sampson were of no real help to us having only two known children - both daughters and named Mary and Jane!

However, I believe this is the Mary CURNOW who was buried at Towednack 22nd February 1811.

The burial record shows her age as 85 and would indicate a birth about 1725 or thereabouts.

That being the case I have only ONE possibility in my database that I have not yt 'put in the ground'.

Mary d/o Andrew and Mary (nee OSBORN) QUICK bp. 20th March 1725 at St Ives

I have no guarantees that this is the right person but she must be considered as a real possibility.

When her parents were married t Zennor in 1721 Andrew was 'of Towednack' although he was buried at St Ives in 1748.

And that in itself is possibly helpful. Andrew left a Will and as far as I recall (without trying to locate it) I am sure that either of his daughters had yet married.

I would certainly consider this Mary to be the one who married Sampson CURNOW but I would note it as 'not yet proven' until we have done a bit more work.

CT

[gandolf]

No problem, will do note the connection accordingly.

It was as much as anything just curiosity, as the connection is not directly relevant to the data I was putting together, but it does of course form part of the larger picture.