Cornwall: GAZETTEER OF MARKETS AND FAIRS IN ENGLAND AND WALES TO 1516: PLACES

[B]  [C]  [E]  [F]  [G]  [H]  [I]  [K]  [M]  [P]  [R]  [S]  [T]  [V]  [W]

• Bodmin
• Boscastle
• Bossiney
• Bosworgey
• Callington
• Camelford
• CARGOLL
• East Looe
• Fowey
• Goldsithney
• Grampound
• Helston
• Insworke
• Kilkhampton
• Lanreath
• Launceston
• Lawhitton
• Lelant
• Liskeard
• Lostwithiel
• Menheniot
• Methleigh
• Mitchell
• Mousehole
• Padstow
• Paul
• Pelynt
• Penknight
• Penryn
• Penzance
• Polruan
• PORTHENESS nr Mousehole
• Probus
• Redruth
• St Buryan
• St Columb Major
• St Erme
• St Germans
• St Mawes
• St Michael’s Mount [Marghasyou (Market Jew]
• St Newlyn East
• St Stephens
• Saltash
• SHEEPSTALL nr Tregony
• Sheviock
• Summercourt
  also known as Penhale, Long Chipping, or the Long fair
• Tintagel
• Tolcarne
• Tregony
• Trematon
• Truro
• Veryan manor of Lerky
• Wadebridge
• Week St Mary
• West Looe

[Last updated: 17 November, 2006]

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

 top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

top of page

Gazetteer Home Page

CORNWALL

[B] [C] [E] [F] [G] [H] [I] [K] [M] [P] [R] [S] [T] [V] [W]

Last updated: 17 November, 2006

NB: Additions of 4 May 2004 in red. These updates/additions represent changes to the printed Gazetteer published in 2003 by the List and Index Society.

Contents

Lelant War Memorial

You may find an entry on the War grave commission site. Click HERE to search their site.

Use the back arrow to return to this page.

0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0

The Lelant War Memorials for the first & second world wars take the form of windows.

World War One 1914 - 1918

The first world war window is in the south aisle of the church and contains no names but has the following legend:

Thanks to God and in memory of the men of Lelant

who gave their lives in the Great War 1914 - 1918. R.I.P.

The names of the men who died are placed on a framed Roll of Honour next to the window,

Called to make the Supreme Sacrifice

Ernest Albert Firstbrook M.M. WG - William Stuart Gilbart WG -

William Thomas Martin WG

Andreas Neilsen - James Ellery Phillips WG - Charles Gordon Steer WG

James Mathew Trewhella WG

For more information on the above you can visit the excellent web site of Maxwell Adams by clicking HERE . Use your back button to return to this site.

0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0

Rest eternal grant them, after glorious fight;

Shed on them the radiance of thy heavenly light.

Lead them onward upward to the holy place,

Where thy saints made perfect,

Gaze upon thy face

Amen.

0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0

The Second World War window is in north aisle of the and contains the names of those who lost their lives in the conflict.

Richard J H Mudge WG - Cyril J G Macnaghten WG - James K W Paul WG -

James S Paynter WG E Anderson - Daniel Edwards WG - Hugh D S Dunsford Wood WG -

William B Paul - John C Wilton WG - William J Uren WG

0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0

The First World War roll also contains the names of all those men of Lelant who served in the Army and Navy during the conflict

.

0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0

For more information on the parish go here

Contact Web Master

trencrom Ughel     Posts: 580 Sep 11, 2007 at 11:53am   Quote Post by trencrom on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:53am Zenobia, As Promised, here is my theory on the Edwards family. As discussed on the “visitations” thread, we have two 17th century pedigrees relative to this family which although not totally incompatible do disagree on one essential point, namely whether the Thomas Edwards who was the son of Henry Edwards had a full brother named William. Thomas is furthermore credited with a half brother with that name in one of the pedigrees, and with a half brother with the same given name but a different surname in the other pedigree, which is the earlier of the two. Both of these pedigrees appeared to have been supplied by relations, although their focus clearly differs. Thomas Edwards in his pedigree is focusing on demonstrating to the heralds in their visitation of 1620 his entitlement to gentry status and/or a coat of arms, and the pedigree for which he appears to be the informant does not concern itself with much detail about his wider family, whether on his father’s side or on his mother’s. For example, it does not even mention the spouses or children of his claimed brothers. Mary Trefusis, his first cousin, in her pedigree of 1603 though is focusing on her overall descent from a number of different armigerous ancestral lines, and part of that focus involves some emphasis being placed on her relationship to other people who share various parts of that ancestry with her. These other people of course includes the Edwards family, or rather some members thereof. The information in the 1603 pedigree suggests to me that the Edwards pedigree of 1620 may be in error on the above point, and it could also be that the Bosaverne half brother to Thomas has been incorrectly shown in the latter pedigree as being his full brother. This would in turn mean that the William Edwards and John Edwards who appear in subsequent decades at Lelant, and who are known not to have been descended from Thomas himself, must have been descended from one of Thomas’s half siblings instead. As you have pointed out, a three lives lease dated 1666 names the relevant lessees as John Edwards and a (third) William Edwards, and the lives concerned as those of this last William Edwards, his wife Dorcas, and a Sedwell wife of Thomas Thurleby. We know from the will of this Thomas Thurleby that he had seven daughters, and that they were all under age in 1683 when his will was compiled. Hence none of them were born before 1663. We have christening dates for three of them, and the marriage dates for another three would suggest that they were born subsequently, rather than prior to, the ones for whom we have these christening dates. In other words, it appears probable that Thomas Thurleby married Sedwell in the period 1660-1665. The deed of 1666 however does not state the relationships of any of the parties (bar Dorcas) to each other, an omission which I find rather unusual. Despite this, the marriage date (1660) for William and Dorcas, and the christening dates of children evidently born to this couple, together with an appearance by a John Edwards, who would surely have to be the same John named in this lease, at Lelant in the protestation return of 1641, and a mention of a John and his wife Alice in 1650, when all taken together would strongly suggest that this William has to be of the subsequent generation to this John, and so by inference almost certainly his son. The same argument could be made for Sedwell, but I will return to her in a moment. For the moment I merely want to establish the chronology of an apparent child of John’s, as a partial means of establishing a chronology for John himself. Now we get to the question of which William in the earlier pedigrees is the apparent father of this John. According to the 1603 pedigree, Thomas did not have a full brother named William, so then who was John’s father? That John definitely had a forebear with this name is apparent from the deeds from St Dennis that you have described. These deeds show that John Edwards of Lelant must have been the legal heir in 1650 of a William Edwards of Lelant who was living in 1599, because in that latter year John held a property that was owned by that William and his wife Phillipa in the earlier year. However in 1632, we have a reference to a William Edwards of Lelant and his then wife Sedwell. Given the unusual given name in this instance, and its association with the same Edwards family twice in 34 years, I think you have made a strong onomastic argument for an Edwards-Thurleby connection here. The additional chronological factors also seem to constitute a strong argument in favour of your placing of Sedwell junior as the daughter of John, and John himself as the son of this Sedwell senior by this earlier William. As you have pointed out elsewhere, with a later William Edwards appraising the inventories of the estates of both Sedwell junior and her husband Thomas, and with one of Thomas and Sedwell junior’s children, possibly their eldest child, bearing the same given name as John’s wife, there is some additional circumstantial evidence pointing in the direction of an Edwards-Thurleby connection. As you have rightly pointed out, there are difficulties in suggesting that William the husband of Phillipa must have subsequently remarried to Sedwell and then by her become the father of John, because with Phillipa as a joint lessee in 1599, how could William’s son by a later wife have been her heir? However I do not think that the husbands of these two women were one and the same man. To my mind the early date of the first St Dennis deed and the references that you have posted concerning a William Edwards in the subsidy lists of Lelant in the fifteen nineties are consistent rather with the William of 1599 being the William of those records. As you have also pointed out, the William Edwards of the subsidy lists appears therein from 1585 onwards, and since this appearance predates the similar appearances of Thomas Edwards in later Lelant subsidy lists, the William in question must be Thomas’s elder Edwards half brother. I think that also chronologically a William married by 1599 fits more with that William being an older half-brother of Thomas rather than him being the younger full brother of the 1620 pedigree. This is because Thomas gives the age of his eldest son as 20 years in the 1620 visitation, and the ages of the other sons together with the number of the daughters suggest that his eldest son was probably also his eldest child; hence Thomas himself presumably married around 1599. As the eldest son of the third marriage, Thomas is much more likely in my opinion to have become married before any full brother of his was wed, rather than the other way around. However, this William of the 1590s subsidy lists is far too old to be have been John’s father, because if Sedwell junior married in say 1665, she would have been born c. 1635-45 and hence her father c. 1610-25, making him born rather late to have been the son and heir of a man already of full age in 1585. However if John was born c. 1610-25 then his father presumably would not have been born before 1570 at the very earliest, in which case the William of 1585 cannot be John’s father, as that William would not appeared in the subsidy records while a minor. You have suggested that John was born no earlier than 1610, and in the preceding paragraph I have indicated that same date as being my likely earliest date for him as well. He certainly must been born no later than 1623 to have been named in the protestation return of 1641. So how do we resolve this? At this point I think the deed of 1632 helps us, because it speaks of Sedwell senior as being “Sedwell Thomas the now [my emphasis] wife of William Edwards”. However that word “now” is not what I would expect to see said about a marriage that may have commenced two and a half to three decades earlier. which points to their marriage as not having occurred in the distant past.In other words, it suggests that the wedding of Sedwell and William was substantially later than 1610, and more likely to instead be towards the end of the above likely time frame for the birth of John. There is also the distinct possibility that William Edwards was a second husband to Sedwell senior, as the description of the deed of 1632 makes it sound like Sedwell became the lessee of the land in question prior to marrying William, but it is also unusual to find land at that time being tenanted by a spinster. This scenario would mean of course that she was not a Thomas by birth. Was she therefore a Thomas widow, who had been left a lease by a former husband? On the matter of Frances Edwards, since she first married in 1625 I do not see on chronological grounds how she could’ve been a daughter of William and Sedwell if their marriage was “later” in time as I am suggesting. For that reason I would be placing Frances as a sister of William rather than a daughter of his. Placing her as his sister would, of course, still account for her apparent Edwards connections in later years which you have described. Therefore I am proposing the following alternative pedigree for the Edwards family: Generation one: Henry Edwards, married secondly to …….. Samford of Somerset (Thirdly to Margaret Gaverigan, by whom he has children Thomas, Jennifer, and Elizabeth) Generation two: Stephen Edwards and his brother William senior, William being married by 1581, he and his wife Phillipa both living in 1599, William still living in 1641, and died 1644/5, Generation three: Henry Edwards senior of Ludgvan and his brother William junior, William being married by, say, 1622 to Sedwell senior (i.e. Sedwell Thomas), both living in 1632, William still living in 1641, and their sister Frances married before 1625 to Nicholas Remfrey, and subsequently remarried to John Harris, Generation four: Richard Edwards the son of Henry, and his first cousin John the son of William junior, living in 1641, who married Alice before 1650, John still living in 1669, Generation five: Henry Edwards junior the son of Richard, and his second cousins William married to Dorcas Eva in 1660, and Sedwell junior married to Thomas Thurleby by 1665. This version of the pedigree I think accounts for the problem of the devolution of the estates at St Dennis from the William Edwards husband of Philippa of 1599 to the John Edwards of 1650, who I am showing as that William’s grandson. It incidentally also would make the Ludgvan Edwards even closer kindred to the ones at Lelant, because the common ancestor under this reconstruction is a generation later.

Cornish Terrier Administrator     Posts: 10,466 Sep 11, 2007 at 4:34pm   Quote Post by Cornish Terrier on Sep 11, 2007 at 4:34pm Have had a read through this but am not really cognisant with a lot of the information (even though Zenobia has been at me for years to help sort it out. : And I must say that I have not had a great deal to do with these old deeds at all. But I will make one comment based on your quote below:-   At this point I think the deed of 1632 helps us, because it speaks of Sedwell senior as being “Sedwell Thomas the now [my emphasis] wife of William Edwards”. From other documents (mainly Wills and mostly later) that I have dealt with the term 'now wife' indicates that Sedwell was, at minimum, a second wife. Perhaps the approximate date of that marriage might be determined from the wording of some of the earlier documents involving the same man. It need not have been a 'recent' re-marriage but the reference certainly indicates that Sedwell was not the first spouse of this man.

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 11, 2007 at 7:52pm   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 11, 2007 at 7:52pm Trencrom, Thank you so much for the analysis! I will have to put it on paper with a chart and a timeline and study it a bit, then get back to you. The only thing I see that I disagree with so far (and I don't think it will materially affect your scenario) is regarding term 'now wife' (Ian and I have argued about his before and I disagree with his statement above also), but I will also go into that a bit later today. Right now I am nursing a bad headache - not a condition conducive to genealogical reasoning. When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Cornish Terrier Administrator     Posts: 10,466 Sep 11, 2007 at 8:43pm   Quote Post by Cornish Terrier on Sep 11, 2007 at 8:43pm It's always my fault. Although this discussion is centred mainly around the 1500's and 1600's I stand by my comments regarding 'now wife'. I have copies of Wills (most certainly one which is a direct photocopy of the original from the CRO) which uses the term 'my now wife' and I have shown in the past (to Zenobia) that I have enough evidence to prove this man was married more than once. In fact the man in question, James Trewheela (s/o John Trewhella and Katherine nee Hingston) was buried at Ludgvan in 1764 and had been married three times. It is possible the meaning of the term 'now wife' altered over time but, for now, I am 'sticking to my guns' on this one and say that the inference is that more than one marriage was involved. I was not nicknamed 'Cornish Terrier' for nothing but prove me wrong and I will defer.

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 11, 2007 at 9:39pm   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 11, 2007 at 9:39pm ianjtrewhella said: It's always my fault. Yep! ;D Although this discussion is centred mainly around the 1500's and 1600's I stand by my comments regarding 'now wife'. I have copies of Wills (most certainly one which is a direct photocopy of the original from the CRO) which uses the term 'my now wife' and I have shown in the past (to Zenobia) that I have enough evidence to prove this man was married more than once. In fact the man in question, James Trewheela (s/o John Trewhella and Katherine nee Hingston) was buried at Ludgvan in 1764 and had been married three times. That is one will only. Obviously, if the term 'now wife' is used with frequency (which it is), it will occasionally, by coincidence, refer to someone who was married more than once. I have a number of wills, and also deeds, in both England and America, in which a female is referred to as 'now the wife of' and in not ONE of those cases did the spouse have a former marriage. I will again quote genealogist Val Greenwood: "The term my now wife is very often misunderstood as it appears in various records. It is often misinterpreted to mean that the person making the statement or to whom it applies has been previously married, but this is not necessarily true and the person making the statement had something quite different in mind. Usually the term was used in wills when the testator wanted to place a limitation on that will which the court would recognize even when he wasn't around to explain. The thing for you to remember is that this was not an explanatory phrase but rather a phrase used to limit the inheritance rights of any future wife in case the "now wife" should die before the will was probated and he should remarry. The person making such a statement in a will may have been previously married, but the statement was not made to protect property against the claims of a previous spouse but always from possible future spouses." I find that when the term is used in land records it differs a bit from when used in wills, and generally is used to refer to the current status of a female, ie: Mary Smith, now the wife of John Jones. This frenquently occurs in land distributions where a decd. person left a number of children and some or all of the females are now married - the maiden name is genearlly given first, to emphasize that they are the legal issue of the decedant, and then the married name: ie: ...leaving the following issue: John Smith, George Smith, Mary Smith now the wife fo John Jones, Letty Smith, now the wife of James Roe, and Eliza Smith, Jane Smith and Samuel Smith minors above the age of 16 years.... (Sorry Ian, I don't mean to sound harsh - I just get real up in arms on this one, as we've argued it before... ) So I would assume that the record above (more about that in the next post) is worded that way to indicate Sedwell Thomas' current status in 1632. Last Edit: Sep 11, 2007 at 9:45pm by Zenobia When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 11, 2007 at 10:11pm   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 11, 2007 at 10:11pm Now, I must apologise regarding the deed mentioning Sedwell Thomas - when I did the Edwards of Ludgvan post I included what seemed to be adequate info at the time to work on the identity of the Williamses. However, this might change things a bit: Here is the full abstract: Henderson, Vol. 7, p. 127: #349: 1632. Ezechil Gross & his trustees lease to James Remfry of St. Hilary yeo: Lands in Bosparva in Gwinear which belong to Francis Tregian vis 4/5 & 1/5 belonging to the heirs of Lower. tenants: John Harry als Scoller, Sidwell Thomas now wife of Wm. Edwards of Uny Lelant, yeo., Christian Thomas w/o John Uryn of Lelant Lives: Margery w/o sd. James Remfry, Eliz. Pascowe & Anne P. her daur. by one John P. of St. Hilary her former husband now decd. So you see, the land was not an inheritance of Sidwell's; she was only the tenant. I suspect that in the original Christian may have also been called "now wife" - Henderson used lots and lots of shortcuts in his abstracts. Of course, without seeing it we cannot be certain. I do think in this case however, the term 'now wife' was simply used to indicate Sidwell's present status, as opposed to her former status of being a Thomas - I don't think it neccessarily meant she was recently married. I took the above to perhaps indicate that Sidwell and Christian were Thomases by birth and most likely sisters, having possibly inherited the tenancy as co-heirs to original leasee. I note that I also have copied a notation from p. 133 (1633) which refers to a "John Urin of Lelant, yeo. and his dau. Ann Gartrell w/o Ambr. G." There is also a deed on p. 130 (1622) involving John Thomas als Trithwell, but it is different land. I need to recheck this part of Henderson and double check the details. One more thing (this one does not potentailly alter anything) - Thomas Edwards was born ca. 1564, as he gives his age in a deposition concerning smuggling at St. Ives. Henry was apparently his second child, as the Aug 1605 (wr) will of John Roscruge leaves 40 sh. each to Jane Edwards the younger, Henry Edwards and Ann Edwards, in that order. Jane was probably b. ca. 1598 and Anne perhaps ca. 1603 (she married John Lanyon in 1626). I will be back a bit later with some comments specific to the analysis. Last Edit: Sep 11, 2007 at 11:31pm by Zenobia When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 11, 2007 at 10:59pm   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 11, 2007 at 10:59pm First of all, regarding the above scenario, now that I have had more time to look it over: I like it! A few thoughts to add to the mix. William Edwards and Dorcus Eva were m. on 11 Jun 1660, so presumably he must have been born no later than 1639. This is going to make his father John no later than about 1618, unless they made very early marriages (not the norm, but we see that did happen in the family of Henry of Ludgvan). If Wm. II was the brother of Henry of Ludgvan, would he not have to have been the elder brother to have inherited the lands in St. Dennis? We know Henry was b. in 1581, so if we put William back to, say 1578 or so, then we are looking at William I being born about 1555. That makes him age 90 when he dies - a bit long in the tooth... We have two Williams living in 1641 - which one dies in 1645? I assume it almost has to be the elder one, is it then possibly that the younger dies before his father (ca. 1642-4) or does he died between 1645-1650, hence the St. Dennis land passing directly to John by that year? Frances Edwards Remfrey Harry had her last child in 1640 - if she was say, 45, that would give her a birth of about 1595. So we do have a potential gap between 1581 and 1595 to account for, unless William II fits in the middle... I do quite like John Edwards being Frances' nephew, however; that makes him just a likely a candidate for bondsman on her husband's estate as a brother. Of course, you realize, once we get this sorted out, we have to untangles the Bossaverns... Last Edit: Sep 11, 2007 at 11:32pm by Zenobia When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 11, 2007 at 11:12pm   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:12pm Also.... Regarding the discrepancies between the two pedigrees, with the 1620 one adding a second William: Since Thomas Edwards himself was the signer and apparently the provider for the info on the 1620 pedigree, I always trusted it as accurate. However, we have to take into account the fact that what we are actually privy to is Vivian's published visitations. We therefore have at least three possibilities for mistakes 1. The Herald made a mistake 2. Vivian made a mistake 3. Vivian's typesetter or editor made a mistake. If you examine that particular Edwards' Visitation, you will note that Vivian himself added some additional info about the later generations, showing Henry Edwards (b. 1600) with sons Arthur and Francis, and Arthur with a son Thomas. All were from the BTs and are correct. However, Vivian shows no wife for Henry, but shows Henry's younger brother Thomas as marrying "Grymes of Devonshire". In actuality it was Henry, not Thomas, who married Mary Crymes of Buckland Monachorum. I think this was quite possibly a mistake on the part of the typesetter. Were Vivian's originals ever available in handwritten and not printed form? I ask because I have some really really old letters (turn of century) regarding Edwards in which the Visitation is mentioned and it claims to show Henry as being married to Grymes of Devonshire. So someone at some point must have seen an earlier manuscript of Vivian. Anyway, I point out the above to show how easily a second William could have crept in while still assuming that Thomas correctly identified his family. In fact, Thomas may have credited his half-brother with a son William and the typesetter may have stuck him in the wrong place... Last Edit: Sep 11, 2007 at 11:15pm by Zenobia When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 11, 2007 at 11:27pm   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 11, 2007 at 11:27pm Eeek! Do you have access to Harl 1079, folio 144? That old letter I referred to has references to it (but then also seems to be directly referencing Vivian as it refers to "the portion that appears in italics etc" and it includes Vivian's additions - it is very confusing); anyway, it lists William and Stephen as "ob sine prole" The letter incidentally is dated 12 Sept 1887 Bobandara, NSW by a J. Wilbraham Edwards, but as it is typewritten, it is obviously a copy of an earlier handwritten document. (Did they have typewriters in 1887? Probably not in OZ anyway ;D ) When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

trencrom Ughel     Posts: 580 Sep 12, 2007 at 12:34pm   Quote Post by trencrom on Sep 12, 2007 at 12:34pm A few points in response to the posts: I think "now" wife means "nowadays" but to me that still indicates a certain degree of newness about the status, or at the least an implied "then" to contrast with the "now". It would be interesting in that regard.to know how frequently "now wife of " appears compared to just "wife of" in such contemporary documentation. I think also of how it contrasts with the "sometime" that one also sees in old documents, as in "AB sometime sheriff of Dorset" or "MN sometime the wife of XY" which I have seen used to describe a widow. "Sometime" clearly means "former" in these instances. I don't see "now wife" of itself as therefore indicating the existence of a prior marriage for either a wife or a husband. I do think it indicates a change in Sedwell senior's status, all the more so if Christian is not so described. This as you say is where an actual quote from the original deed would be handy. You are of course right re Sedwell's holding being a lease, not an inheritance of land owned outright. I too wondered whether the adjacent mention of Christian indicates that she was a sister to Sedwell senior. Some earlier references to the land in question, if these can be found, might help us establish this either one way or the other. I don't think either was a Thomas als Trithwell though -- I have seen two wills for this family in the 1610s, (and a slightly later pedigree for the same family), but while many relatives are named therein, neither of these women are. I agree, if the William Edwards who died in 1645 is William I, the William of 1585 subsidy list, then he must have lived to the age of 80+,* but if that is the case though then it would suggest to me that William I was probably not all that much older than his younger brother Thomas. Since only two children to Henry's second wife are shown, one could speculate at this point that perhaps this indicates that the marriage in question was of fairly short duration. (Is that then why Thomas did not know her name??) *I have a feeling that I read years ago, unfortunately I cannot remember where, perhaps in some old Cornish antiquary's writings or similar, that this (Penwith) part of Cornwall was known for having many folk therein who were long-lived by the standards of the time. I agree though that the death of 1645 could relate to the younger William, allowing John to inherit directly from the grandfather if the grandfather died at a later date. Re William Edwards, husband of Dorcas and ages at marriage -- there certainly seem to be a few folk marrying young at this time. I see for example that Joan Thurleby, wife of William Hawes, was not yet 20 when her son Thomas Hawes was born. In relation to the ages of men at marriage around this time, I am wondering whether firstborn sons might have tended to marry earlier than their younger brothers, or put another way, whether younger sons, lacking an inheritance from their fathers, might have therefore tended to have married later than their eldest brothers who were provided for. As you have pointed out, Thomas Edwards, a younger son, was evidently in his mid-thirties before getting married. William I therefore may have been born say c. 1560, or even a year or two later, married c. 1580 and then fathered Henry. I also agree that you would then expect that Henry would have been his heir. And perhaps he was. However. while we know that Philippa was William's wife in 1599, do we know that she was also his wife in 1581? Alternatively, could the joint holding of William and Philippa of the land in 1599 indicate an enfeoffment with a subsequent reversion to a nominated person other than the common law heir? thus allowing the Lelant Edwards rather than the Ludgvans the inheritance of this particular land holding. I have seen two separate versions of Vivian in the past. The first (pub. 1874 from memory) just has the original pedigrees without the annotations, the second (pub. 1887, and which is much larger in size) includes both. Have not checked the former though for this family. If the "ob sine prole" does not appear in the older publication then you would want to know where the author of the lefter you referred to got it from -- unless it was simply someone's assumption based on the lack of any marriage/children recorded for either man in the Vivian pedigree (?) Which pedigree is Harl. 1079 144? Visitation pedigrees can be strange documents at times-- I have seen another in the 1620 Cornish one where the informant named his wife, children, parents and leaves out all of his siblings. We know they existed, as we have the father's will to prove it. Vivian in his annotations added one or two, but left out at least five others

Cornish Terrier Administrator     Posts: 10,466 Sep 12, 2007 at 6:49pm   Quote Post by Cornish Terrier on Sep 12, 2007 at 6:49pm That's it - abuse and then Although I have not yet completed reading the latest postings on this subject I will offer this:- "now the wife of" - a term mentioned in the above. Have no real problem with that one as it is an indication that (e.g.) the instigator of the document was talking about a female who was either a relative (sister, aunt, neice etc.), or, possibly, a 'fond female aquaintance' who was now married (and who could possibly have been married before.) "my now wife" - I will stick by my guns on this one based on my own experiences with the Will I quoted in my last. (That would be the one that incurred such lambasting. ) I am trying to read through the rest of the latest postings on this and can, to a point, see where some subtle difference might enter into things. My thinking is that, as in the case of James Trewheela's Will of 1764, "my now wife" seems to have emphasis on the "now" - meaning this is not a first marriage. In this case it has shown to be a third marriage. Hypothetical - what if the term "my then wife" was used. Talking of subtleties - I think there is a subtle difference between the following:- "my now wife" "now my wife" The term "now the wife of" is another of interest. Much depending on the Will itself and, obviously, the Testator, this is another term that may be misinterpreted. Probably more importantly in this case would be the relationship of the Testator to the particular female legatee. e.g. - "I leave to my neice Mary Bloggs "now the wife of" Fred Nurke" Scenario - Fred Nurke dies and Mary (nee Bloggs) remarries to Ivenot Gottaname. Another Uncle of Mary dies and leaves a Will which states - "I leave Mary "now wife of Ivenot Gottaname" ..." Reading a little more of the latest postings I can see the points you are making. However I did state that there was quite some difference in time between the period you have been discussing and 1764 when James Trewheela's Will was written/proved. I believe I also stated something along the lines that 'wordings and meanings' may have changed over that time.   It is possible the meaning of the term 'now wife' altered over time but, for now, I am 'sticking to my guns' on this one and say that the inference is that more than one marriage was involved. And here is where one of those subtleties creeps in:-   Sidwell Thomas now wife of Wm. Edwards of Uny Lelant, yeo., Christian Thomas w/o John Uryn of Lelant In this case the girls are named under what would appear to be their maiden names and then stated as 'now wife of ...' so there is, to my mind, some difference. I will stick to my comments here as it would certainly appear all is not 'cut and dried' and I think we need to keep an open mind and view all such documents, and references, with caution. Trencrom:-   *I have a feeling that I read years ago, unfortunately I cannot remember where, perhaps in some old Cornish antiquary's writings or similar, that this (Penwith) part of Cornwall was known for having many folk therein who were long-lived by the standards of the time. I reckon I have seen this quote somewhere also but, as you, cannot recall where. But there does seem to be a certain amount of longevity in early days in West Cornwall. That is it for me for now.

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 13, 2007 at 7:08am   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 13, 2007 at 7:08am Here are four more citations all online: www.ancestry.families.aol.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=7371 "My Now Wife"A will may use the phrase "I give my farm, the "Worthless Eighty," to my now wife or her heirs." Does this mean the testator had more than one wife? No. This wording is used as a preventative measure. Let's look at what might happen if "my now wife" is not used. Henry's will specifies that the "Worthless Eighty" is to go to his wife. Her name is not written into the will. She is the mother of several children with Henry. This wife dies and Henry marries SusieQ, who already had two children. Henry dies. The will says the farm goes to the "wife." SusieQ inherits the property and the farm goes to her children. Henry's children get left out. If Henry's will had said "my now wife" or her heirs, then his first wife's children (Henry's children) would have inherited the property. To prevent potential stepchildren from inheriting instead of the biological children, the phrase "my now wife" is used. The "my now wife" phrase really is a contingency phrase in the will—just in case a future marriage takes place and the will does not get rewritten. home.att.net/~hbridges/relate.htm "My now wife:" This term is sometimes found in a will and may, as is often assumed, indicate the testator had a former wife, but this is not necessarily so unless he is referring to children by a first wife and children by his current or "now" wife. When the term is used WITHOUT reference to children, it more usually means the testator intends the bequest for his current wife and not any subsequent he may have. www.onegreatfamily.com/newsletters/Newsletter_Guests_2005_08_05.html The Evolution of Language by Lisa South, Certified Genealogist The term “my now wife” is one that appears in some probate records and is often misunderstood. A researcher may assume from this term that there was a previous marriage when in reality it is a term to limit the inheritance rights of a future marriage in case the “now wife” should die before the husband’s will is probated and he remarries. www.rootsweb.com/~mdsomers/misc.htm "my now wife" or "my present wife" This was a legal phrase and did not necessarily mean there was a former spouse. When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 13, 2007 at 7:13am   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 13, 2007 at 7:13am Trencrom - just caught your post now at almost midnight - I was so busy abusing poor Ian that I missed it ha ha. So will answer straightaway tomorrow. Catch you both then. When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

trencrom Ughel     Posts: 580 Sep 13, 2007 at 12:10pm   Quote Post by trencrom on Sep 13, 2007 at 12:10pm No problem -- I have ordered the older edition of Vivian in at the local library, they were not able to locate it today so I have asked for a second search to be done.

Cornish Terrier Administrator     Posts: 10,466 Sep 13, 2007 at 5:39pm   Quote Post by Cornish Terrier on Sep 13, 2007 at 5:39pm Dear Cousin - As if I do not already cop enough abuse! But the point is taken as I have just read your latest. However - I do/did have a valid point and got some discussion going. In the case of the Will of James Trewheela (without reading it again) I think you will find that he mentioned children of more than marriage and also mention his 'now wife' (who turned out to be, by maiden name, another Trewheela) ;D Look forward to more of this and will contribute as I can.

Reply

page 2

Edwards of Lelant c. 1580-1670

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 13, 2007 at 11:21pm   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 13, 2007 at 11:21pm ianjtrewhella said: That's it - abuse and then My thinking is that, as in the case of James Trewheela's Will of 1764, "my now wife" seems to have emphasis on the "now" - meaning this is not a first marriage. In this case it has shown to be a third marriage. Taking into consideration James Trewhella's active marital history, I would suggest that he was not at all unaware of the possibility of him taking a fourth wife after writing his will... ;D   In this case the girls are named under what would appear to be their maiden names and then stated as 'now wife of ...' so there is, to my mind, some difference. I will stick to my comments here as it would certainly appear all is not 'cut and dried' and I think we need to keep an open mind and view all such documents, and references, with caution. Yes, the troubling part is that we have one Thomas girl named as 'now wife of' and another simply named 'wife of'. It is entirely possibly I may have left out the second 'now' when copying, so I need to check that. (I was planning a trip to the FHC tonight, but am without transportation again, so it will have to wait till next week). It is also possible that Henderson did not copy it correctly. Henderson uses countless abbreviations, and his handwriting is not the easiest to read, so this too is a possibility. However, a third thought occurred to me. Would the use of 'now wife' be sufficient in legal terms to only be needed once per document, the later 'wife of' then being understood? What causes me to wonder is that we had a similar experience with the 1670 will of Peter Painter. For Trencom's edification, in that nuncupative will, Peter's daughter Catherine is referred to as 'the now wife' of Robert Cornow, but his daughter Sibella, named shortly afterward is simply called 'the wife of' Mathew Stevens. We have never found any evidence of Robert having had an earlier wife, and his marriage to Catherine was not 'new' as they had been married at least 16 years by then. So why use the term in the first case, but not the second? So again, I am wondering if the use of the term in legal documents would then be inclusive of any later relationships of the same type found in the same document; ie: one only has to use it in the first instance to cover all the others? When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 14, 2007 at 12:05am   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 14, 2007 at 12:05am Trencrom wrote: William I therefore may have been born say c. 1560, or even a year or two later, married c. 1580 and then fathered Henry. I also agree that you would then expect that Henry would have been his heir. And perhaps he was. However. while we know that Philippa was William's wife in 1599, do we know that she was also his wife in 1581? Alternatively, could the joint holding of William and Philippa of the land in 1599 indicate an enfeoffment with a subsequent reversion to a nominated person other than the common law heir? thus allowing the Lelant Edwards rather than the Ludgvans the inheritance of this particular land holding. Assuming that William II was the younger (and not older) brother of Henry of Ludgvan, then it would be interesting to know where the main family holdings started out. Thomas, who we are now assuming was the younger half brother of William I, held lands at Lelant, including The Abbey, and appears to have been seated there. William I must have had some lands at Ludgvan, as his son (and presumably heir) Henry is chr. there and resides there all his life. Could these have been the primary holdings for the Edwards family? William II, besides inheriting the St. Dennis land, must have held at Lelant, since his branch of the family continued to reside there. To show just how convoluted the landholdings among the branches of the family might be, here are a number of deeds which involve representatives of both branches: All are from Henderson. Vol. II, pg. 66, #51: Fine, Octave of Hilary, 6 James I (1609) Tho Edwardes, gent & Henry Edwards, quer, Richd. Sutton Esq. & Elizabeth his wife def. 2 mes. 2 gardens 1 orchard 30 acres 6 meadow 20 pasture & 30 heath in Tregethas alias Tregiras, Rosevinney als Rosevinnie, Saynte Erth & Ludgvan p. 67, #56: 11 James I (1614) 1 Sept - Licence of alienation to Tho Edwards gent to alienate 3 mes 1 garden 20 acres 3 meadow 20 pasture 9 wood & 10 heath in tregrethas als Tregethas & St. Earth which he holds in Capite to Francis Godlophin Esq. p. 67, #57: Fine - Octave of Hilary 12 Jas I (1615) Tho Edwardes gen & Jane his wife deforciants & Francis Godolphin Esq. queriant. The premises named in #56. p. 71, #70: 24 March 1657 Henry Edwards of Lelant gent for L198 sells to Richard veale of Ludgvan gent all his lands in Rosevinny als Rosevidny in Ludgvan now in the tenure of James Tressurvian & Joane Green widow. Resurvey a lease 27 Feb 16 Chas I made by sd. henry Edwards to Sampson Greene decd. on lives of sd. Sampson Johan his mother & Christian his wife. Attornees Wm. Painter & Arthur Painter p. 72, #72: Fine Trin 1658 Richd. Veale gent & James Lose quer. Henry Edwards gent Wm. Honychurch gent & Mary his wife def. 1 mes. 2 gardens 30 acres 6 meadow 20 pasture 20 furze 6 moor in Rosevinny als Rosevidny Roscadwell Ludgvan & Madderne pg. 223 #8 (H.C. 8) 1664 30 July Henry Edwards of Ludgvan gent, Wm. Hoskyn of the same yeman Richard Hoskyn of Ludgvan yeman being seized in fee of lands called Tregarthen als Tregerthan in Ludgvan they do make a full partition of the same in 3 parts (mentions Henry Edwards & his heirs) Note in the first deed above of 1609, the Henry mentioned is too young to be Thomas' son, and if his father was past 90, so is presumed to be his nephew Henry of Ludgvan. When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 14, 2007 at 1:04am   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 14, 2007 at 1:04am trencrom said: No problem -- I have ordered the older edition of Vivian in at the local library, they were not able to locate it today so I have asked for a second search to be done. The old letter to which I referred is very confusing. As I mentioned, it is dated 1887. On the page talking about the Edwards pedigree it references Harl. M.S. 1162, p. 139. But it distinctly refers to 'the portion printed in italics' - which of course would be Vivian's, and it also shows Vivian's additions of Francis, Arthur and Thomas. The letter goes on to talk about immediate ancestors in Devon, but claims a link with the Lelant branch and includes this statement: "A third cousin of ours Thos. Edwards (now a very old man) living at Colston near Buckfastleigh distinctly recollects seeing 'Lelant' written in a Book of his father's and also hearing it said that the Devonshire Family had come from 'Lelant' " The letter is full of inaccurate suppositions, such as "Grymes of Devonshire" refers to the family of Grymelles (it is actually Crymes), and that Francis Edwards might be the Devon progenitor (in reality Francis never married and died in Lelant). I am intrigued by the possible Devonshire connection, however, and wonder whether one of Henry (1660)'s brothers (Thomas or Benjamin) may have migrated that way, or if maybe Henry's namesake grandson (son of his decd. son Thomas, who did reside in Devon) may have gone back there. When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

trencrom Ughel     Posts: 580 Sep 14, 2007 at 8:45am   Quote Post by trencrom on Sep 14, 2007 at 8:45am admin said: Assuming that William II was the younger (and not older) brother of Henry of Ludgvan, then it would be interesting to know where the main family holdings started out. Thomas, who we are now assuming was the younger half brother of William I, held lands at Lelant, including The Abbey, and appears to have been seated there. William I must have had some lands at Ludgvan, as his son (and presumably heir) Henry is chr. there and resides there all his life. Could these have been the primary holdings for the Edwards family? I was starting to wonder about this too. William I and/or his brother Stephen were clearly the senior line of the family, so if Henry was Williams eldest then it may be that the Lelants overall are the junior lines. (Thomas' line certainly was, or course)   admin said: William II, besides inheriting the St. Dennis land, must have held at Lelant, since his branch of the family continued to reside there. Agreed.   admin said: here are a number of deeds which involve representatives of both branches ....... Note in the first deed above of 1609, the Henry mentioned is too young to be Thomas' son, and if his father was past 90, so is presumed to be his nephew Henry of Ludgvan. Agreed: this earlier Henry has to be the Henry Edwards senior of Ludgvan -- too late to have been Thomas' father, who was probably deceased by this time anyway. It would be interesting to know whether the St Dennis property came to the Edwardses via Philippa, or else through previous generations of the Edwards family.

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 17, 2007 at 3:53am   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 17, 2007 at 3:53am Here is the way I have now laid them all out date-wise - let me know what you think: A. Henry Edwards 1516-post 1593 ....1. William Edwards ca. 1558-1644/5 m. Philippa _____ .....a. Henry Edwards 'of Ludgvan' 1581-1654 m. Alice ______ ..........1) Richard Edwards ca. 1609-1635/6 m. Lowdie ______ ...............a) Henry Edwards 1631-? ...............b) Frances Edwards 1631 ...............c) Jane Edwards 1633 ..........2) Mary Edwards ca. 1611 m. Richard Michell ......b. William Edwards ca. 1590-bef. 1650 m. Sedwell Thomas ...........1) John Edwards ca. 1615-aft. 1669 m. Alice _____ ................a) Mary Edwards ca. 1636 m. John Penberthy .................b) William Edwards ca. 1638-1703 m. Dorcas Eva .................c) Sedwell Edwards ca. 1640-1695 m. Thomas Thurleby .......c. Frances Edwards ca. 1595-? m1) Nicholas Remfrey m2) John Harry ...2. Stephen Edwards ca. 1560 ...3. Thomas Edwards 1564-post 1629 m. Jane Roscrudge ........a. Jane Edwards ca. 1598 ........b. Henry Edwards 1600-1678 m. Mary Crymes .............1) Arthur Edwards 1625-1716 .................a) Thomas Edwards 1667-aft 1685 dvp .................b) Gertrude Edwards ca. 1669-1725 m. Andrew Hosking .............2) Francis Edwards 1627-1702 .............3) Thomas Edwards ca. 1629-1661 m. Joane Sowton ..................a) Mary Edwards 1654-? m. Alexander Bandfield ..................b) Henry Edwards 1656-d.y? ..................c) ____ Edwards 1659 .............4) Jane Edwards ca. 1632 m? .............5) Margaet Edwards ca. 1635-1720? ?m. John Leacher? .............6) Elizabeth Edwards ca. 1637 .............7) Agnes Edwards ca. 1640-1704 .........c. Anne Edwards ca. 1603 m. John Lanyon .........d. Thomas Edwards 1607-? .........e. Margaret Edwards ca. 1609 .........f. Prudence Edwards 1611-1685/6 .........g. Benjamin Edwards 1613-? Last Edit: Sep 19, 2007 at 6:32am by Zenobia When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

trencrom Ughel     Posts: 580 Sep 17, 2007 at 4:50am   Quote Post by trencrom on Sep 17, 2007 at 4:50am That's pretty much as I see them right now, too. Would that be 1560 for Stephen though? I don't seem to have anything on the Mary who married John Penberthy -can you fill me in on this please? Do you have access to Stoate's published Tudor taxes and muster roll of 1569? I had a quick peek the other day and could not find any Edwards at either Lelant or Ludgvan. Checked a few of the adjacent parishes without much luck either. Would not expect to find William or Stephen in the same but Henry should have been in the muster roll...... Does he appear in any of the Lelant subsidies? Last Edit: Sep 17, 2007 at 4:52am by trencrom

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 18, 2007 at 8:24pm   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 18, 2007 at 8:24pm trencrom said: That's pretty much as I see them right now, too. Would that be 1560 for Stephen though? Ooops! I knew my dyslexia would rear its head somewhere... I will fix it. I don't seem to have anything on the Mary who married John Penberthy -can you fill me in on this please? Thomas Thurleby in his will mentioned two brothers-in-law John Penberthy of Carveena in Lelant and James Bennatts of Penzance, who were to serve as executors if his wife should remarry. The usual procedure in a case like this was to choose one relative from the husband's family, and one from the wife's. Now James Bennatts had a wife named Christian, and the will of Thomas Thurleby's father names a daughter Christian, so this is very likely to be Thomas sister who is married to James Bennatts. John Penberthy died in 1690, leaving a wife Mary and son Stephen. Since Thomas did not have a sister named Mary, she is presumed to be the sister of Sedwell. Of course there are a number of other scenarios - John Penberthy's wife Mary could be a second wife, or John himself could be a step-brother of either Thomas or Sedwell, but I went with the premise that seemed most likely. Do you have access to Stoate's published Tudor taxes and muster roll of 1569? I had a quick peek the other day and could not find any Edwards at either Lelant or Ludgvan. Checked a few of the adjacent parishes without much luck either. Would not expect to find William or Stephen in the same but Henry should have been in the muster roll...... Very odd. I know that Henry served as a yeoman of the guard or some such, as he had a lawsuit for some money owing him. I need to get a copy of that one. Does he appear in any of the Lelant subsidies? The only ones I have are the ones printed in Matthew's. 1549 shows "her' Edward" - presumably "heirs of Edward" and no one else shows up until William in 1585. When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 19, 2007 at 6:33am   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 19, 2007 at 6:33am I double-checked Henderson today and the deed mentioning the two Thomas girls and Henderson's version was as I listed it earlier, with the word 'now wife' in the one case, but not in the second. When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Cornish Terrier Administrator     Posts: 10,466 Sep 19, 2007 at 6:58pm   Quote Post by Cornish Terrier on Sep 19, 2007 at 6:58pm Start with the earlier version (which should be much more contemporary) and work from there - would be my suggestion. The version that is closer to the actual event should, one would think, be the more accurate given that the iinformation is much more 'fresh'. (Unless some little 'porky pies' were involved for some reason. )

trencrom Ughel     Posts: 580 Sep 21, 2007 at 4:56am   Quote Post by trencrom on Sep 21, 2007 at 4:56am admin said: trencrom said: Do you have access to Stoate's published Tudor taxes and muster roll of 1569? I had a quick peek the other day and could not find any Edwards at either Lelant or Ludgvan. Checked a few of the adjacent parishes without much luck either. Would not expect to find William or Stephen in the same but Henry should have been in the muster roll...... Very odd. I know that Henry served as a yeoman of the guard or some such, as he had a lawsuit for some money owing him. I need to get a copy of that one. Looked at 1569 muster roll for Lelant, Ludgvan, Gulval, St Erth, St Ives and Phillack --no Edwardses. A Benet Edwards was at Towednack and a Mychell and a John at Gwithian. Also saw 1524 and 1545 subsidies for Lelant, St Erth and Ludgvan --again nothing, although two surnames in the Ludgvan list are evidently obscured. Unfortunately I did not have time on the day in question to check any other parishes for either kind of record. Not sure what to conclude here -- my first reaction was to wonder if this indicates that the Edwards family came to the Lelant area from elsewhere? But they must have been there by 1569! Hence does this therefore mean that Henry was working well away from home and hence recorded wherever he was at the time? As I understand it, the muster was supposed to list all able-bodied men aged between 16 and 60, so Henry should be there .... somewhere .....

Cornish Terrier Administrator     Posts: 10,466 Sep 21, 2007 at 6:30pm   Quote Post by Cornish Terrier on Sep 21, 2007 at 6:30pm Just a thought.   the muster was supposed to list all able-bodied men aged between 16 and 60, so Henry should be there .... somewhere ..... Is it possible that Henry Edwards was not "able-bodied" and was therefore exempted from Muster Roll.

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 22, 2007 at 1:57am   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 22, 2007 at 1:57am ianjtrewhella said: Just a thought.   the muster was supposed to list all able-bodied men aged between 16 and 60, so Henry should be there .... somewhere ..... Is it possible that Henry Edwards was not "able-bodied" and was therefore exempted from Muster Roll. No, Henry served as Yeoman of the Guard sometime before 1558. Whether he was in Lelant at the time of the Muster Roll is unknown, but his wife was present there sometime between 1566-1569 when she sued the Vicar for defamation. When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Cornish Terrier Administrator     Posts: 10,466 Sep 22, 2007 at 5:06pm   Quote Post by Cornish Terrier on Sep 22, 2007 at 5:06pm OK - we are talking Henry bn. about 1516 In which case he would have been about 42 in 1558 at 'around the time' he served as a 'yeoman of the guard'. But we are then talking about the Muster Roll of 1569 - some nine years later. In the intervening years is it not possible something may have happened that denied him of his 'able-bodied' status. He would also have been about 53 by this time. Just something more for you to think about.

trencrom Ughel     Posts: 580 Sep 23, 2007 at 11:29am   Quote Post by trencrom on Sep 23, 2007 at 11:29am cornish terrier: That thought occurred to me too, and as Zenobia says with his wife resident in Lelant in 1566-9 and then described as his wife (so he was clearly still living) the family were clearly in Lelant by that date, even if for the sake of argument they moved there only after the 1543 subsidy (in which no Edwards appear in the parish in question). So perhaps this does indicate that he was incapacitated in some way? Zenobia: can you eleborate please on him being a yeoman of the guard?

Cornish Terrier Administrator     Posts: 10,466 Sep 23, 2007 at 5:03pm   Quote Post by Cornish Terrier on Sep 23, 2007 at 5:03pm Thanks for your concurrence Trencrom. It is at least something worth considering and I will await the next from Zenobia on this subject. I have stayed out of this discussion on most occasions because it is not a family, nor an era, that I know enough about. However - there are times that I look through some of this information and 'have some thoughts' that I will throw into the mix. ;D

Reply

page 3

Edwards of Lelant c. 1580-1670

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 24, 2007 at 2:39am   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 24, 2007 at 2:39am Here is the catalogue entry: I have not sent for it yet, as I am broke... C 1/1348 Henry EDWARD of Lelant, yeoman of the Guard, v. Alice, late the wife of John TREVISSA of the Guard, deceased, and administratrix of his goods.: Complainant's pay received by the said Trevissa from the paymaster of the Guard and the clerk of the check.: MIDDX., CORNW. I was off a bit on the date - it says 1553-1555. When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 24, 2007 at 7:26pm   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 24, 2007 at 7:26pm Hmmmm... If you look at Azenor's post on the Muster Roll on the Towednack board, it says it was a muster for tinners age 15-65... Is that true? It would explain why no Edwards were on it.... When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Cornish Terrier Administrator     Posts: 10,466 Sep 24, 2007 at 8:35pm   Quote Post by Cornish Terrier on Sep 24, 2007 at 8:35pm I would rephrase that to 'could'. Yes, there were 'Tinner's Muster Rolls' as I understand it but, to be honest, I do not recall when they were taken. However, if you take a closer look at Azenor's note you will see that her concentration is on the later 18th Century which, by far, is beyond the limit if enquiry regarding the Edwards of the 1500's. Forgive me if I am incorrect, but I believe the 'Tinner's Muster Roll 'was brought in much later and probably into the 18th Century. Do not have the wherewithall to check on it right now.

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Sep 25, 2007 at 12:09am   Quote Post by Zenobia on Sep 25, 2007 at 12:09am Oooops! The date totally went by me... I am still rather under the weather, so am not functioning very intelligently right now... When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Cornish Terrier Administrator     Posts: 10,466 Sep 25, 2007 at 5:08pm   Quote Post by Cornish Terrier on Sep 25, 2007 at 5:08pm The opening is there for me to say something ........... ;D But I won't. You are excused. I believe I have 'something' in my books here somewhere that might clarify the problem here regarding the Tinner's Muster but .... However, I am pretty near sure these Rolls were much later and more in the 18th Century. If I find something of help (whilst packing etc.) I will let you know.

trencrom Ughel     Posts: 580 Sep 26, 2007 at 4:12am   Quote Post by trencrom on Sep 26, 2007 at 4:12am I can't say that I am all that familiar with tinners' musters per se, but I should point out that the muster of 1569 that I referred to earlier was not that kind of muster, as each man is described with whatever weapons he had in his possession, such as bows, armour etc. It also includes several gentry figures who are named therein under their respective parishes.

Cornish Terrier Administrator     Posts: 10,466 Sep 26, 2007 at 9:13pm   Quote Post by Cornish Terrier on Sep 26, 2007 at 9:13pm I will try to find something more about the 'Tinner's Muster Rolls' so that we might clarify things. It seems I have been slightly incorrect. Had a quick search of some of my books, even rang cousin Nancy and could come up with no 'absolute' answer to the question of the 'Tinner's Muster'. So, just to embarrass myself , I tried the 'new-fashioned method' Internet - Google - Search - "tinner's muster" And it is during this search that I found items referring to Tinner's Muster Rolls as far back as about 1520. There does, however, seem to be a difference between this and the 'regular Muster' that we know. Herewith an extract:-   So what where the stannaries and their parliament all about? Basically it was the tinner's governing body and the mining districts over which it had jurisdiction. Booker in Gill, 1977, pp.114-20, begins the history of the Stannaries in Saxon times when a stannary court was held in AD950. Here the tinners of Devon and Cornwall were charged dues on the tin mined, mainly because most of the mining land was owned by the Duchy of Cornwall. The Lord Warden was head of the stannary officials and communicated with the King or Prince and the miners. The whole of Dartmoor was deemed a stannary area and so was a self governing 'mini' state within a state. This meant it had its own laws, customs, courts and gaol (Lydford). The effect of this was to promote tinners above the common law by right of tinning privileges. Unless a tinner killed, injured or stole he was untouchable by anything except the stannary court. Provided a man was going to mine tin he could leave any feudal service without reproach, he could dig for tin literally wherever he wanted and on any land no matter who owned it. He enjoyed freedom from all 'tallages, aids, tolls and dues' at all fairs, ports and markets within his county. In the end the Devon tinners were exempt from paying ordinary national taxes. They were excused any jury service apart from that of the stannary courts and even had the right to muster their own militia in times of war, this was under the command of the Lord Warden. Obviously there was plenty of resentment from non-tinning people, both rich and poor and the system was wide open to abuse with many men using tinning as a 'convenient' occupation, all you had to do was grab a shovel and start 'tinning'.   And another interesting item from a list of 'available lookups' for Cornwall from the OPC site:-   Cornwall 1522 muster (includes tinner's muster) So, given I was wrong, I was right. The Tinner's Muster was separate to the Muster we all know but the only problem I had was I thought it came later rather than being concurrent with the 'normal' Muster Roll. Not quite sure how this helps with the Edwards clan - but it is useful in any case.

trencrom Ughel     Posts: 580 Sep 29, 2007 at 12:45pm   Quote Post by trencrom on Sep 29, 2007 at 12:45pm Zenobia: Finally got to sight the earlier edition of the visitations today for Edwards --- no mention of either William or Stephen being ob sine prole.

Zenobia Administrator The Grand Hoggan     Posts: 675 Oct 16, 2007 at 1:18am   Quote Post by Zenobia on Oct 16, 2007 at 1:18am trencrom said: Zenobia: Finally got to sight the earlier edition of the visitations today for Edwards --- no mention of either William or Stephen being ob sine prole. I didn't think so.... So where does this put us? I really like your William/William/John scenario, and it would still be nice to get rid of that pesky other William that Thomas allegedly named as a brother... - could it have been a mistake on the part of the herald, or even of Vivian or his editor? When the corne is out of Parc an Venton...

Reply

THE EDWARDS FAMILY OF LELANT...

THE EDWARDS FAMILY

Each generation of siblings is represented by the same number. The person who is the direct ancestor (and the parent of the next generation) is given in CAPITALS at the end of each generation, regardless of his birth order in the family. Letters in ( ) are coded to notes at the end of the info.

1. HENRY EDWARDS b. 1515, Lelant d. aft. 1593 (a) (b) m1 Matilda Launce (no issue) m2 ________ (Samford) Stephens m3 ca. 1560, MARGARET GAVERIGAN, d/o John Gaverigan of Gaverigan, St. Columb Major (c)

.............................

(by wife #2)

2. William Edwards d.y.?
2. Stephen Edwards

(by wife #3)

2. William Edwards b. ca. 1560? (d) d. bef. Jan 1644/5 (d) (issue) (e)
2. Jenefer Edwards d. in infancy
2. Elizabeth Edwards d. in infancy

2. THOMAS EDWARDS b. 1564, (f) Lelant d. aft. 1629 (g) m. ca. 1596, JANE ROSKRUGE, d/o John Roskruge of St. Anthony in Meneage

.............................

3. Jane Edwards b. ca. 1598, Lelant (h)
3. Anne Edwards b. ca. 1603, Lelant (h)
3. Thomas Edwards b. 1607, Lelant (i)
3. Margaret Edwards b. ca. 1609, Lelant
3. Prudence Edwards chr. 31 Dec 1611, Lelant (t) d. 1686, St. Austell, unm. (j)
3. Benjamin Edwards b. 1613, Lelant (i)

3. HENRY EDWARDS b. 1600, (h) (i) Lelant d. 1679/80, Lelant (k) m. 28 Jun 1624, Buckland Monachoram, Devon, MARY CRIMES. (r)

.............................

4. Francis Edwards (k) chr. 27 Mar 1627, Lelant (o) d. 1702, Lelant unm. (l)
4. Jane Edwards (s) d. bef. 1679 m.?
4. Thomas Edwards (s) b. ca. 1631 bur. 30 Oct 1661, Buckland Monchoram, Devon m. 29 May 1653, Buckland Monachoram, Joan Sowton (issue)
4. Margaret Edwards (k) m. ________ (issue?)
4. Agnes Edwards (k) bur. 28 May 1704, Lelant unm. (m)
4. Elizabeth Edwards (k) m. ________ (issue?)

4. ARTHUR EDWARDS (k) chr. 10 Apr 1625, Lelant (o) d. 1716, Lelant (n) m. ?JANE _________ (q) bur. 29 Jun 1683? (m)

.............................

5. Thomas Edwards chr. 7 May 1667, Lelant (o) d. aft. 1686 (j)(n) (no issue)

5. GERTRUDE EDWARDS (n) b. ca. 1670 d. Aug/Sep 1725 (p) m. 13 Apr 1702, Lelant, ANDREW HOSKING (p)

__________________________________________

SOURCES AND NOTES:

All unfootnoted information taken from the following source: J.L. Vivian, "The Visitations of Cornwall, Comprising the Herald's Visitations of 1530, 1573 and 1620" (Exeter: William Pollard & Co., 1886), p. 145, pedigree of Edwardes, from the original visitation taken in 1620, signed by Thomas Edwards, and providing information on the first three generations consisting of Thomas' parents, siblings and children. The notes below are coded to the letters ( ) in the body of the information:

a. Charles G. Henderson, "Calendars of Cornish Manuscripts" Vol. 15, p. 79, depositions taken at St. Erth, 36 Eliz. (1593), regarding a land dispute at Tredreye, ".... Henry Edwards of Lelant yeo. age 78...."

b. Henderson, Vol. 2, p. 66 #51, Fine: Octave of Hilary 6 Jas I (1609) "Tho Edwards gent & Henry Edwards, quer....." regarding land at St. Erth and Ludgvan, known to be held of this Edwards family. Thomas Edwards' son Henry was only nine, and could not be the second party mentioned; Thomas' father would be 94, unlikely, but not impossible; there were also Edwards cousins in Ludgvan who may have held an interest in this property.

c. Henderson, Vol. 10, p. __, Consistory Court Depositions Book, 1566-1569, fo. 26: "Margaret wife of Henry Edwards of St Uny juxta Lanant against Nichs Kernishe vicar of Lanant & Agnes wife of Maurice Davye of the same for diffamation. Agnes says `Margaret's good fame is not hendered by any words she may have said & she ackn: there was multiplying of words betw: them by not blutshed or blowes given.'"

d. Vivian, pedigree of Edwardes, William is listed before Thomas, but children are frequently listed out of order to make the pedigrees symmetrical. It does not specify which is the elder son. William however, appears much earlier than Thomas on the Lelant Subsidies lists (1585). William died before 23 January 1644/5, when an inventory was taken on his estate. (Archdeaconry of Cornwall, Admon of William Edwards, gent, AP/E/218, dp. 16 April 1645). Arthur Edwards was one of the appraisers.

e. Archdeaconry of Cornwall, Will of Henry Edwards, AP/E/356, dp. 8 Mar 1679/80. Mentions friend and kinsman, Henry Edwards of Ludgvan. This is assumed to be a descendant of Henry's uncle William. (A Harry Edwards is chr. in 1681 at Ludgvan to a William). William is definitely the father of John Edwards, gent, who appears on some of the later Lelant subsidies lists, and may be the father of Frances (Edwards) Harry of Gwithian, whose husband's inventory is taken by John Edwards, gent, of Lelant. Francis (sic) Harry is one of the witnesses to the 1653 will of Henry Edwards of Ludgvan.

f. John Hobson Matthews, "A History of the Parishes of Saint Ives, Lelant, Towednack and Zennor in the County of Cornwall" (London: Elliot Stock, 1892), p. 130, Examination of witnesses at St. Ives, 44 Eliz. (1598), regarding smuggling at St. Ives: "Thomas Edwards of Lelaunte gent, aged 34..."

g. Matthews, pp. 198-204, Thomas Edward gen., pays a subsidy at Lelant in 1625 on goods rated at four pounds, and in 1629 on goods rated at five pounds. In 1641 Thomas is not listed in Lelant, but a Thomas Edwards gen. has goods at St. Ives rated at 3 pounds. This could be the elder Thomas, or possibly his son. The next list for St. Ives (1664) does not list any Edwards at St. Ives.

h. Archdeaconry of Cornwall, Will of John Roskruke, dp. 3 October 1605. Written 26 August 1605. Names daughter Jane Edwards, and grandchildren Jane Edwards, Henry Edwards and Ann Edwards. In the Visitation of 1620 as presented by Vivian, the four girls are named first, then the three boys with the boys ages only given. John Roskruke's will gives a clue to the correct birth order; obviously the last four children are not yet born by August 1605.

i. Vivian, pedigree of Edwardes, (Visitation of 1620). Henry is listed as age 20, Thomas as age 13 and Benjamin as age 7.

j. Archdeaconry of Cornwall, Will of Prudence Edwards, dp. 25 Feb. 1685/6. Mentions "cosens" Arthur, Francis and Agnes Edwards; daughter of Arthur (not named); Thomas s/o Arthur is the main beneficiary and the executor.

k. Will of Henry Edwards (see "e" above) Mentions son Arthur, son Francis (unmarried), daughter Agnes (unmarried); daughters Elizabeth and Margaret (apparently married but husbands not named); granddaughter Mary, w/o Alexander Bamfield; granddaughter Jane (no surname given).

l. Archdeaconry of Cornwall, Estate of Francis Edwards, dp. 7 May 1702. Brother, Arthur Edwards, named administrator.

m. St. Uny Lelant, Cornwall, Bishop's Transcripts, LDS film #90272.

n. Archdeaconry of Cornwall, Will of Arthur Edwards, dp. 8 May 1716. Mentions daughter Gertrude, w/o Andrew Hosking; grandson Andrew Hosking; granddaughter Gertrude Hosking. Son Thomas not mentioned in will; presumed deceased without issue, as Gertrude receives the entire inheritance.

o. Vivian, Pedigree of Edwardes of Lelant; Vivian adds Henry's two sons Arthur and Francis and Arthur's son Thomas-- dates taken from the original Bishop's Transcripts at Exeter.

p. St. Uny Lelant, Cornwall, Parish Register, LDS film #1595781.

q. Arthur's wife is already long deceased when he made his will. All attempts to secure her name have been unsuccessful. She appears to be deceased before 1686; as the will of Prudence Edwards (Arthur's aunt) makes reference to "Arthur Edwards and his daughter," but mentions no wife. She is possibly the Jane Edwards buried at Lelant in 1683. There were a couple of other Edwards living at Lelant, but their wives' names are known and they were not called Jane.

r. Vivian's Visitations shows "Grimes of Devonshire" as the wife of Thomas Edwards, son of Thomas and Jane (Roscruge) Edwards. This appears to be a typo, as Henry, Thomas' brother, was married at Devonshire to Mary CRIMES. Mary was christened 22 Jul 1596 at Buckland Monachorum to William and Margaret (Harris) Crimes. In the 1620 Visitation of Harris of Hayne and Kenegie, Mary's uncle Arthur Harris gives the name of his brother-in-law as William GRIMES of Buckland Monachorum.

s. Predeceased their father. Named in the will of their uncle, Lewis Crimes (P.C.C. 150 Berkeley, dp. 15 May 1656.)

t. Original Bishop's Transcript of Lelant, Cornish Studies Library, Redruth.

Back to Cornish Database....
 			


  

via

•  Edwards Family....
  The Edwards family of Lelant, gentlemen, beginning with Henry Edwards who was born in  1516, and continuing through "the end of the name" with the death of Gertrude Edwards  Hosking in 1721.

                             HAWES FAMILY:

Each generation of siblings is represented by the same number. The person
who is the direct ancestor (and the parent of the next generation) is given
in CAPITALS at the end of each generation, regardless of his birth order
in the family. Letters in ( ) are coded to notes at the of the info.
                   
1. WILLIAM HAWES  bur. 2 Mar 1683/4, Lelant, Cornwall (b)
     m. ca. 1649, Lelant, ANNE KELWAY (j) chr. 22 Feb 1625/6, Lelant, d/o 
     William and Margaret (    ) Kelway  d. bef. Nov. 1683 (c)
..........................

2. Elizabeth Hawes  m. 12 Feb 1672/3, Lelant, Lewis Penberthy (c)(d) (issue)
2. Jane Hawes  bur. Mar 1692, St. Ives  (n)  m1. Christopher Penberthy (c)(m)
     (issue)  m2. 17 Oct 1687, St. Ives, William Hawking (n) (issue)

2. WILLIAM HAWES (b)  b. ca. 1660  m. ca. 1686
     m. JOAN THURLEBY  chr. 23 Feb 1667/8, d/o Thomas and Sedwell (Edwards) 
     Thurleby (l)  bur. 31 Dec 1728, Lelant, Cornwall
..........................

3. Thomas Hawes  chr. 24 Sep 1687, Lelant  bur. 3 Jan 1732/3, Lelant  
     m. 28 Sep 1717, St. Just in Penwith, Cornwall, Mary Shakerley (e)  (issue)
3. William Hawes  chr. 6 Jul 1689, Lelant  bur. 14 Sep 1728, Lelant
     m. 19 Feb 1718/9, Lelant, Agnes Geen  (issue)
3. Ann Hawes  b. ca. 1691, Lelant  bur. 17 Feb 1696/7, Lelant (b)
3. Alice Hawes  chr. 29 May 1694, Lelant
3. Sedwell Hawes  chr. 2 Jun 1696, Lelant
3. Bridgett Hawes  chr. 21 Sep 1698, Lelant  bur. 26 Jul 1730, Lelant
     m. 14 Apr 1718, Lelant, Phillip Hosking  (issue)
3. John Hawes  chr. 29 Mar 1701, Lelant  m. Susanna ________  (issue)
3. Richard Hawes  chr. 20 Aug 1703, Lelant  bur. 2 Feb 1703/4, Lelant (b)
3. Samuel Hawes  chr. 4 Feb 1704/5, Lelant  bur. 15 Sep 1728, Lelant
3. Joseph Hawes  chr. 1709/10, Lelant (f)  bur. 8 Jan 1773, Lelant (g)
3. Joan Hawes  chr. 10 Jun 1711, Lelant  bur. 2 Feb 1780, Lelant
     m. 2 Feb 1730/1, Lelant, Stephen Noall (issue)

3. RICHARD HAWES  chr. 11 Oct 1707, Lelant  bur. 17 Mar 1775, Lelant
     m. 31 Aug 1734, Lelant, GERTRUDE HOSKING (k) (1704-1741)
..........................

4. Joseph Hawes  chr. 23 Apr 1739, Lelant
4. JANE HAWES  chr. 1 May 1737, Lelant  bur. May 1791, Lelant
     m. 10 Jun 1760, Lelant, ROBERT HAMPTON (1732-1805--see HAMPTON FILE)

4. RICHARD HAWES  chr. 10 Aug 1735, Lelant  bur. 25 Aug 1807, Lelant
     m. 17 Jan 1771, Lelant, CATHERINE PENBERTHY  (b. 1735) (h)  bur. 
     19 Feb 1824, Lelant)
..........................

5. Richard Hawes  chr. 14 Jun 1772, Lelant
5. Gertrude Hawes  chr. 27 Nov 1774, Lelant  bur. 4 Jun 1776, Lelant
5. Gertrude Hawes  chr. 30 Aug 1778, Lelant  bur. 27 Jun 1820, Lelant
     m. 20 Jun 1801, Lelant, Thomas Hampton (see HAMPTON FILE) (i) (issue)

5. CATHERINE HAWES  chr. 17 Jul 1782, Lelant  d. Carnes Downs, Lelant
     bur. 9 Oct 1846, Lelant  m. 29 Oct 1804, Lelant, JOHN HAMPTON (see 
     HAMPTON FILE) (i)

               -----------------------------------------

                         SOURCES AND NOTES:

The majority of the above information has been taken from the following
source. Individual notes follow.

St. Uny Lelant, Cornwall, Parish Register, LDS film #1595781.

        
        Notes coded to letters ( ) in body of info:

a. The 1641 Protestation Returns for Cornwall show a John, Richard and
   a William Hawes at Lelant. All would be born before 1623, as men had to
   be 18 to be listed. William is probably our William, and either John or
   Richard may be his father.

b. St. Uny Lelant, Cornwall, Bishop's Transcripts, LDS film #90272. 

c. Archdeaconry of Cornwall, Wills & Admons, AP/H/2105, Will of William
   Hawes, dp. 21 May 1684. Written 1 Nov. 1683. Mentions son William, 
   daughter Elizabeth Penberthy, daughter Jane Penberthy, brother-in-law, 
   George Kelway and Lewis Penberthy (no relationship given).

d. Lewis Penberthy mentioned in the above source is undoubtedly one of
   William Hawes' sons-in-law, as he was in possession of William's
   field. The Bishop's Transcript for Lelant shows the marriage of Lewis
   Penberthy to Elizabeth--no surname given.  

e. International Genealogical Index, England, Cornwall. Excerpts of
   various Cornish parish registers.

f. Month and date of christening unreadable, but near the end of the 
   year, probably February or March.

g. There are a lack of burials for Joseph Haweses. This burial could be 
   as likely that of Joseph son of Thomas, or Joseph son of Richard.

h. Lelant P.R. Age 88 at death. Catherine's age at death does not match
   the christening of the only known Catherine Penberthy born in the area
   (1745 to Stephen and Margaret Penberthy). Catherine born 1745 disappears 
   from the records, and it is POSSIBLE that she may be our Catherine with 
   the age at burial recorded incorrectly. However, this is NOT PROVEN.

i. Gertrude and Catherine both married their first cousins, brothers
   Thomas and John Hampton, sons of their aunt, Jane (Hawes) Hampton.

j. William's will names brother-in-law, George Kelway. The original Bishop's
   Transcript for Lelant for Lelant includes an undated marriage return for
   William Hawes and Anne Kelway in the 1600s. Anne's christening is also found
   in these Transcripts.

k. Charles G. Henderson, "Henderson's Cornish Manuscripts," Vol. 12, p. 103,
   Milton Collection, Penwith Deeds: No. 315, dated 1735, "Richd. Hawes of
   Uny Lelant yeoman and Gertrude his wife daughter of Andrew Hosking of Uny
   Lelant gent, deceased...."

l. Archdeaconry of Cornwall, AP/T/1590, 11 May 1696, adminstration of Sedwell 
   Thurleby, widow, granted to daughter Joane, wife of William Hawes of Lelant.
   Ibid. AP/T/1303, 22 Oct 1683, will of Thomas Thurelby of Lelant names 
   daughter Joane and wife Sidwell.
   Note: Sedwell Thurleby was the daughter of John and Alice Edwards of Lelant;
   Henderson's Cornish Manuscripts, Vol. 8, p. 145, deed by John and William 
   Edwards dated 1673--lives named are the said William, Dorcas his wife, and 
   Sidewell wife of Tho Thurrelby. William was the son of John, and was involved
   in the administration of both Thomas and Sedwell Thurleby's estates. Alice, 
   wife of John Edwards was buried at Lelant on 19 April 1669. Sedwell Thurleby 
   named her first daughter Alice. John Edwards was the son of William Edwards of 
   Lelant; Henderson, Vol. 7, p. 127, deed dated 1632 mentions Sidwell Thomas, now 
   wife of William Edwards of Lelant. So Sedwell wife of Thomas Thurleby who was one
   of the lives on the 1673 deed was John's daughter, and named for his mother.

m. Admon of Christopher Penberthy (Archdeaconry of Cornwall AP/P/1657, 1686) names
   his widow as Jane. William Hawes (Jane's brother) was one of the bondsmen. A 
   further administration paper dated 1688 now calls Jane the wife of William Hawkin.

n. St. Ives, Cornwall, Parish Register, LDS film #1595570.

Back to Cornish Database....
 		

  

via  Hawes Family....
Four generations of the Hawes family of Lelant.

        HAMPTON FAMILY OF ST. ERTH & LELANT, CORNWALL:

Each generation of siblings is represented by the same number. The person
who is the direct ancestor (and the parent of the next generation) is given
in CAPITALS at the end of each generation, regardless of his birth order
in the family. Letters in ( ) are coded to notes at the end of the info.

1. JAMES HAMPTON, of St. Uny Lelant, found on the muster roll of 1569.
.........................

2. EDWARD HAMPTON  b. ca. 1577  d. 1655, St. Erth (a)  m1. 18 Sep 1598, 
     Camborne, Dwens ______  (f)  m2. 20 Apr 1622, Lelant, ELIANOR TRESISE (p)  
     (bur. 9 Jan 1669, St. Erth)
.........................

3. James Hampton (a) b. ca. 1600  m. ca. 1622, Frances _______  (issue) (r)

3. ROBERT HAMPTON  chr. 30 Mar 1630, St. Erth  d. Lanuthnow, St. Erth  (q)
     bur. 2 Feb 1696/7, St. Erth  m. 20 Jan 1661/2, St. Erth, ANN COCK
     d/o Christopher Cock, gent. (b) (bur. 17 Sep 1705, St. Erth)
.........................

4. Robert Hampton  chr. 3 Nov 1662, St. Erth  bur. 25 Nov 1662, St. Erth
4. Elianor Hampton  chr. 8 Dec 1663, St. Erth  bur. 14 Oct 1689, St. Erth
4. Edward Hampton  chr. 2 Feb 1665/6, St. Erth  
4. Thomas Hampton  chr 8 Jul 1668, St. Erth  bur. 3 Apr 1753, St. Erth (c)
     m. 27 Apr 1695, St. Erth, Jane Nicholls  (issue)   
4. Jane Hampton  chr. 6 Mar 1669/70, St. Erth
4. Mary Hampton  chr. 3 Aug 1673, St. Erth (s)

4. ROBERT HAMPTON  chr. 22 Mar 1674/5, St. Erth  bur. 23 Sep 1733, St. Erth
     m1. GRACE ________  (bur. 25 Jan 1720/1, St. Erth)  m2. 1 Oct 1721, 
     St. Erth, Elizabeth (?Painter?) Bennatts (d)
.........................

5. Robert Hampton  chr. 18 Apr 1697, St. Erth  bur. 9 Jun 1697, St. Erth
5. Elizabeth Hampton  chr. 3 Feb 1704/5, St. Erth  m. 4 Nov 1727, St. Erth,
     Stephen Rule  (issue)

5. JAMES HAMPTON  chr. 1 Feb 1698/9, St. Erth  d. Wheal Fortune, Ludgvan (e)
     bur. 9 Mar 1737/8, St. Erth  m. 15 Jun 1723, Lelant, AMY BENNATTS 
     (chr. 21 Feb 1703/4, Lelant--see Bennatts file)
.........................

6. James Hampton  chr. 23 Jul 1727, St. Erth  bur. 8 Nov 1758, St. Erth
     m. 19 Feb 1749/50, Elizabeth (Vivian) Blight, widow (t) (issue)
6. Amie Hampton  chr. 12 Oct 1729, St. Erth  bur. 29 Dec 1801, Truro
     m. 19 Oct 1753, St. Erth, William Tresise  (issue)
6. ?Grace Hampton  chr. 21 Jun 1730, St. Erth (g)  bur. 23 Oct 1734, St. Erth?
6. Grace Hampton  chr. 12 Feb 1737/8, St. Erth  m. 31 Jan 1768, St. Erth,
     Henry Pengilly  (issue)

6. ROBERT HAMPTON  chr. 5 Nov 1732, St. Erth  bur. 16 Nov 1805, Lelant
     m. 10 Jun 1760, Lelant, JANE HAWES (h) (chr. 1 May 1737, Lelant  bur.
     May 1791, Lelant--see Hawes)
.........................

7. Jane Hampton  chr. 21 Dec 1760, Lelant  d. Breage  bur. 11 Sep 1831, 
     Lelant  m. 11 Aug 1800, Edward Richards  (issue) (i)
7. Robert Hampton  chr. 21 Mar 1762, Lelant  bur. 3 Jan 1827, Lelant  
     m. 28 Nov 1786, Lelant, Elizabeth Cooper  (issue)
7. Amy Hampton  chr. 5 Feb 1764, Lelant  m. 3 Aug 1799, St. Agnes near 
     Truro, James Peters (j)
7. James Hampton  chr. 10 Aug 1766, Lelant  bur. 19 Dec 1832, Lelant
     m. 3 Dec 1797, Alice Anthony  (issue)
7. Thomas Hampton  chr. 9 Jul 1769, Lelant  m. 20 Jun 1801, Gertrude 
     Hawes (see Hawes file)  (issue) (k)
7. Catherine Hampton  chr. 14 Apr 1771, Lelant  bur. 17 Aug 1823, Lelant
     unmarried
7. Mary Hampton  chr. 8 Mar 1773, Lelant  bur. 20 Jul 1776, Lelant
7. Gertrude Hampton  chr. 28 Jul 1775, Lelant  bur. 27 Jul 1776, Lelant
7. Mary Hampton  chr. 14 Feb 1781, Lelant

7. JOHN HAMPTON  chr. 11 Apr 1779, Lelant  bur. 5 Jun 1841, Lelant 
     m. 29 Oct 1804, Lelant, CATHERINE HAWES (chr. 17 Jul 1782  bur. 
     9 Oct 1846--see Hawes file)  (l)
.........................

8. Mary Hampton  b. 1806, Lelant  bur. 23 Jan 1885, Lelant  
     m. 28 Aug 1823, Sampson Hawes  (issue)
8. Richard Hawes Hampton  chr. 24 Jan 1808, Lelant  m. 10 Sep 1837,
     Helston, Thomasine Bartle (j)  (issue)
8. Elizabeth Hampton  chr. 9 Sep 1814, Lelant  bur. 18 May 1884, Lelant
     m. 30 Jul 1839, Lelant, Thomas Curvengen Martin  (issue)
8. Jane Hampton  chr. 2 Mar 1817, Lelant  bur. 12 Dec 1823, Lelant

8. JOHN HAMPTON  chr. 3 Mar 1811, Lelant  bur. 31 Mar 1853, Lelant  
     m. 6 Oct 1834, Lelant, ELIZA GLASSON (chr. 28 Apr 1816, Lelant  
     bur. 31 Dec. 1891, Lelant--see Glasson file)
.........................

9. John Hampton  chr. 14 Dec 1834, Lelant  bur. 12 Mar 1836, Lelant
9. Richard Hawes Hampton  chr. 21 Aug 1836  bur. 30 Nov 1860, Lelant
9. Eliza Hampton  chr. 15 Apr 1838, Lelant  bur. 28 Jan 1923, Lelant
     unmarried  (issue) (m)
9. John Hampton  chr. 15 Mar 1840, Lelant  d. 29 Nov 1915, Newton-Chilwell, 
     Grant, Victoria, Australia  (o)  m. 24 Dec 1874, Sandridge, Victoria, 
     Elizabeth (Whatty) James (u)  (issue)
9. Jane Hampton  chr. 29 Jul 1842, Lelant
9. JOSEPH GLASSON HAMPTON (n)  b. 13 Jun 1844, Lelant  (chr. 19 Jul 1844)
     d. 18 Apr 1914, Dale, Cambria Co., Pa.  m. 25 Dec 1867, Danville,
     Montour Co., Pa., SOPHIA (EDGAR) MARR  (issue)
9. Robert Hampton  chr. 24 May 1846, Lelant  d. 1915, Bendigo, Victoria,
     Australia  m. 1868, Victoria, Elizabeth Jane Tyack (v) (issue)
9. Catherine Hampton  chr. 27 Feb 1848, Lelant  bur. 8 Jan 1849, Lelant
9. Ann Quick Hampton  chr. 3 Feb 1850, Lelant  bur. 24 Nov 1888, Lelant
     m. Thomas Scadden  (issue)
9. Elizabeth Catherine Hampton  chr. 23 Mar 1853, Lelant  res. South Fork,
     Cambria Co., Pa.  m. ca. 1871, Cornwall, Frederick Trevenen  (issue)
                 
                -----------------------------------------

                          SOURCES AND NOTES:

The majority of the above information has been taken from the following two
sources. Individual notes follow.

. St. Erth, Cornwall, Parish Register, LDS film #1595497.
. St. Uny Lelant, Cornwall, Parish Register, LDS film #1595781.
...................

         Notes coded to letters ( ) in body of info:

a. P.C.C., 1655, folio 446, Will of Edward Hamton, dyer, of St. Erth, dp.
   28 Nov. 1655. Written 7 Feb. 1654/5. Names wife Ellinor; grandchildren--
   sons and daughters of James Hamton; son Robert Hamton; sisters-in-law
   Ann Winch and Frances Kent.

b. Date from St. Erth P.R. Surname not given. Will of Christopher Cock, gent,
   of Helston (Archdeaconry of Cornwall, AP/C/1812, dp. 28 July 1679) mentions
   daughter Ann Hampton, and leaves legacies to each of her six children,
   given as the children of "Robert Hampton of St. Erth."

c. St. Erth P.R. Age 86 years.

d. Elizabeth Bennatts was the widow of Thomas Bennatts of Lelant,
   and the mother of Amy Bennatts who married Robert's son James.

e. St. Erth P.R. "....killed at wheal fortune." Apparently a mining 
   accident.

f. That Edward was the same man who married both Dwens and Elinor is proven
   from the fact that Edward's childless sister-in-law, Frances Kent, did 
   not name James Hampton or his children in her will. Since she left lagacies 
   to each of her brothers and their children, and to her nephew Robert and 
   his 3 children, the fact that James was not mentioned certainly proves that 
   she had no nephew James; ie: that James Hampton was not the son of Elinor, 
   but of an earlier marriage of Edward. Edward in his 1655 will states that 
   James had "sons and daughters," so he must have had at least 4 children 
   by that time. Had he been the son of Elinor, then there should have been
   some record of this James and his family at St. Erth or Lelant. But the 
   only James found was at Lelant and had children born in the 1620s and 1630s,
   including a son Edward and a daughter Dwens. This James is obviously a son 
   of the Edward Hampton/Dwens marriage, and must be the son referred to in 
   Edward's will. Edward must have been married to Dwens quite young (about 21), 
   and married Elinor as a second wife in his late 40s.  

g. St. Erth P.R. This child is recorded as a daughter of ROBERT Hampton,
   but the only Robert in the parish at the time was James' father, twice 
   widowed. Unless Robert had an unknown, third wife, then this child
   was probably the daughter of James, and the clerk made an error when
   recording the entry (this happens with some frequency). The only other
   explanation for this entry is that the elder Robert and wife Grace had
   another son Robert (no christening recorded) who may have had a child
   baptized at St. Erth. However, there is no marriage or death found for
   another Robert.

h. St. Uny Lelant P.R.: Banns called 11, 18 and 25 May 1760. Robert and Jane, 
   apparently both illiterate, signed with their marks, Robert with an "R,"
   Jane with an "H." Witnesses were Richard Hawes, the bride's father and 
   also parish clerk, and Samuel Uren.

i. Lelant P.R.: Edward Richards, base child of Jane Hampton was christened
   3 Oct 1790 and buried 6 Jul 1791. Jane married the father of the child
   nine years later. Witness was Robert Hampton, probably Jane's brother,
   who was later parish clerk.

j. International Genealogical Index, England, Cornwall.

k. Thomas' wife was his first cousin, and sister to his brother John's wife.
   Thomas and Gertrude had five children, but none lived to adulthood.

l. Lelant P.R.: Banns called 7, 14 and 28 October 1804. John and Catherine
   both signed with an "O." Witnesses were Catherine Hawes, the bride's 
   mother, and Jane White.

m. Edwin Hampton, base son of Eliza Hampton, was christened 13 June 1858
   at Madron, and buried 8 July 1859 at Lelant, residence given as Balnoon.

n. State of Pennsylvania Death Certificate of Joseph Hampton (file #35913,
   18 April 1914) gives his date of birth as 13 June 1845, but as he was
   christened in July 1844, it is obviously off by one year. His birthplace
   is listed as England and his parents as John Hampton and Eliza Glasson.
   U.S. Civil War Pension application #191899, for the minor children of
   William and Sophia Marr (Joseph's stepchildren) gives the date and
   place of his marriage to Sophia.

o. State of Victoria Death Certificate #370, 29 Nov 1915, John Hampton.

p. St. Uny Lelant, Bishop's Transcripts, Cornish Studies Library, Redruth.

   Note: Elinor's parents are still unknown. Her siblings were Frances m.
   William Kent, Ann m. Thomas Winch, James, Anthony and Walter Tresise.
   The will of Frances Kent (Archdeaconry of Cornwall, AP/K/286, dp. 26 Feb
   1669/70) names the three brothers, and names "cousin" (ie: nephew) Robert
   Hampton of St. Erth, and his children, with Robert's eldest son Edward as
   the residual legatee.

q. Charles G. Henderson, "Calendars of Cornish Manuscripts" Vol. 30, pp.
   238 and 240. Painter Deeds, #44 and #52. Robert Hampton is listed as
   a resident of Lanuthnoe in St. Erth in 1661 and 1676.

r. The 1662 and 1664 Hearth Tax for Lelant shows Edward Hampton (son of 
   James) and Frances Hampton, widow, together. Since Edward named a 
   daughter Frances, this is probably his mother.

s. Perhaps the Mary Hampton who married John Lanyon on 22 April 1710 at
   Redruth.

t. Samuel Blight and Elizabeth Vivian were married at St. Erth on 
   18 August 1746. Samuel was buried on 27 Feb 1747/8.

u. State of Victoria Marriage Certificate #4104, 24 Dec 1874, John Hampton 
   & Elizabeth James.

v. Victoria, Australia, Vital Registration Index.

Back to Cornish Database....

  

via Hampton Family....
Eight generations of the Cornish Hampton family, beginning with James Hampton of Lelant, and his son Edward Hampton who died  at St. Erth in 1654. Several later generations also resided at Lelant.