Author
|
Topic: RULE,BRYANT,REED,& BRAY (Read 3518 times)
|
peterpjw
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 46
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
|
Good morning from sunny NSW!
There is a Mary RULE buried 2 Nov 1733 Camborne who might be the first wife of Johnson (1696-1772).
I agree that we don't need to postulate a third wife for him - two is enough, surely! 
I'm inclined to go with the Catharine RULE bur 17 Apr 1733 at Camborne as Johnson's daughter. Perhaps there were two daughters named Catherine, both died in infancy?
So, just to recap - are we now all in agreement with the following:
John RULE m 1752 Catherine BRYANT was bapt 1719 Camborne s/o
Johnson RULE (1696-1772) and his first wife (Mary?) s/o
Johnson RULE (1663-1723) and his first wife Elizabeth JAMES
and
John RULE m 1765 Clarinda ELLIS was bapt 1731 Gwinear s/o
John RULE (1694) and his wife Mary PERKING s/o
Johnson RULE (1663-1723) and his first wife Elizabeth JAMES
I hope I have kept up - are these our conclusions?
Cheers
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Trees
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2297
Can't see the wood for the !!!
|
Good morning from a cloudy South Wales looks a better day than yesterday which
had violent storms. Our son is Marshalling at a racing meet this weekend and had to red flag one session yesterday as they couldn't see the cars from the flag posts! Should be better today he bought a pair of waterproof over trousers yesterday!
Anyway yes and no Peter
YES
John RULE m 1752 Catherine BRYANT was bapt 1719 Camborne s/o
Johnson RULE (1696-1772) and his first wife (Mary?) s/o
Johnson RULE (1663-1723) and his first wife Elizabeth JAMES
NO
John RULE m 1765 Clarinda ELLIS was bapt 1731 Gwinear s/o
John RULE (1694) and his wife Mary PERKING s/o
Johnson RULE (1663-1723) and his first wife Elizabeth JAMES
It looks like John and Mary PERKING had a son John 18 Feb 1732 in Camborne, now this was 1732/33 (from the parish transcript OPC Camborne and is a bit out for Clarinda's husband, so I think Clarinda's husband is the John 1731 brother to Ann 1732 children of John from Gwinear with the huge question of who is the dad!
So today's task is to find a Dad John in Gwinear which is roughly where I came in as at the start of all this I had assigned John=Catherine BRYANT to John 1731!
I'm sure between us we will get it sorted 
I'll just go back through my files now and get back later its a bit early for thinking on the hoof as it were 
Trees
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
peterpjw
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 46
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
|
Hi, me again!
The IGI has a Stephen s/o Stephen bapt 17 Feb 1732 (same batch as for John 1731). Perhaps this is another child for Elizabeth HAMPTON?
Also, the bapt 10 May 1735 at Camborne, for Henry says s/o Stephen "of Gwinear".
Stephen moved around (Gwinear, St Erth, Camborne), therefore, why not John who m Mary Perking? I don't think we can say one way or another for the two Johns (sons of John, no mother named) who were bapt 1731 Gwinear and 1732 Camborne.
All we have are places and first names repeated, and one or two wills that help a little. We don't even know if the John bapt 1731 and Ann 1732 at Gwinear were brother and sister (although father's name in both cases is John Rule). (But, then who is the Ann d/o John Rule buried 26 Mar 1747 Camborne? D/o Jane WILLIAMS perhaps?)
My John and Clarinda's children were: Jane (Clarinda's mother's name), John, Johnson, Stephen, James and Johnson. So, the names are very reminiscent of Johnson RULE & Elizabeth JAMES family.
Maybe, it might be better for me to claim that my John (m Clarinda) was the one bapt 18 Feb 1732 in Camborne, son of John (and postulated wife Mary PERKING), and thus preserve the descent from Johnson RULE and Elizabeth JAMES. This would then leave John 1731 and Ann 1732 (both bapt at Gwinear) children of John from some other Rule family altogether (but as yet unconnected). This would make my John's stated age at death in 1816 (86 years) out by only 2 years, and I find that acceptable.
Does that sound like a better hypothesis?
Cheers
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Trees
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2297
Can't see the wood for the !!!
|
Hi Peter sorry to be so long today church duties and a visit to Father-in law took priority
Yes your solution seems reasonable but like me mark it as slightly worrying I don't think we've reached the bottom of it yet
Stephen =Elizabeth Hampton in St Ertha 4 Nov 1727 she was Bat 3 Feb 1704 d of Robert /Grace Hampton Their first 2 Children were born in St Ertha Grace 1728-1729 and Elizabeth 24 Jan 1729 were Bat in St Ertha next is indeed Stephen 17 Feb 1732 Winer Then Henry 1735-1746 Johnson 1738-1739 and finally James 1744 in Camborne
The will of Stephen dated 19 May 1777 proved 6 Nov 1778
I Stephen Rule of Camborne in Cornwall etc
First Eldest son Johnson £5
Daughter Elizabeth wife of Jo Ur en £3
Servant Thomason HARVEY provided with a year's bond
Son James? Executor furniture etc anything left after all debts etc have been settled
This suggests wife Elizabeth and Stephen 1732 Prue deceased him.
Now I looked hard at him because Elizabeth = John Ur en 2 June 1750 Phillack suggesting a close association with Johnson 1696S family also his children's names are very close to John and Catherine BRYANT's family also John/Catharine have their children in Gwinear and there is room for a John in 1731 but I haven't found one yet and if he had a John he would still have been alive when the will was made and surely would have been mentioned, for that reason I have dismissed this family. But I cant find a death for the son Stephen so where does that leave us!!!
I forgot to mention Johnson's will was witnessed by Richard Lanyon and Ben Pascoe . Will try to find a Ben Pascoe connected with a Jane I Know she's not strictly on our line but would like to know who she was!wit Johnson's
Trees
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Trees
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2297
Can't see the wood for the !!!
|
Hi everyone,
We now have our version of the descendants of Robert RULE on our website We are still building it so please let us know what you think of it so far. As you know there are still a few uncertain areas up for discusion
Trees
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wimbush1975
RootsChat Member
Posts: 106
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Hi, i have Rule's in my tree. I looked at my info and you all have more than i do, i need to update my info missing lots of info any help would be great Johnson Rule 1629 was my 8th greatgrandfather!
Wendy in Australia
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Trees
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2297
Can't see the wood for the !!!
|
Hi Wendy take a look at our web site (link below) it might help look at the BRAY line
Welcome to the extended family
Trees
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wimbush1975
RootsChat Member
Posts: 106
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Hi, looked at your site thanks updating my info. i noticed you had lowdie rule 1634 as a male ive got that as a female marrying john tenby in 1666 is that info wrong, do you have anything on lowdie rule??
Wendy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Trees
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2297
Can't see the wood for the !!!
|
Oh boy this is good look at the Family Search site they have male and female Lowdie /Lowdy etc I took the one from P002071 1558 - 1580 which should be an extraction from the parish register for Lowdie Male 11 MAR 1635 Camborne, Cornwall, father Jo, RULE
All the other entries are patron submisions I will ask for a parish register look up on the board and hope some one is able to confirm what is actually written in the register There are several entries for the marriage and Lowrie is definitely the bride  but put the age 10 years younger
It wont be the first mistake I've found made by the IGI extractors it is annoying when at least on RO wont let you check the actual registers because "The IGI has done an extracted version" sorry I am ranting the IGI is a sore point 
Trees
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Trees
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2297
Can't see the wood for the !!!
|
Hi wimbush1975 well there we have the answer Yes Lowdie is a girl it says twin children of while a year earlier James Rule had twin daurs of so if they had both been boys it would have said twin sons of
You can just not trust the IGI even with extracted records how I wish a certain RO in the midlands would take note they will not let me look at the originals for a missing ancestor because the IGI has extracted the records UGGGGh
Any way I am glad thats sorted and will change our tree asp thanks for letting me know we want to get it right
Trees
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wimbush1975
RootsChat Member
Posts: 106
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Hi, no probs, im sure we all have mistakes some where in our tress i know i do, but i hoping to get it right one day!
wendy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wimbush1975
RootsChat Member
Posts: 106
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Hi, just reading through your site more and you have Rebecca Veal 1654, bap 1654 marrying Johnson Rule, but you have them having children in 1655, dont think thats right! I have her born 1634 and dying 1711, not sure if my dates are right but just letting you know you might of got her wrong.
wendy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Trees
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2297
Can't see the wood for the !!!
|
How daft is that but she isn't on the Camborn register in 1634 either http://www.rootschat.com/links/06a1/
Have you found it?
For some daft reason I have put the marriage date in the baptism must have been having a senior moment or three when I was doing this family its so good to take a new look many thanks keep looking and hopefully we should end up with everything right
Trees
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wimbush1975
RootsChat Member
Posts: 106
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Hi, i went on LDS site some one has got a Rebecca Veale Christened 1634 in Bodmin Cornwall parent John and Lowdy. Not saying that right but what do you think?
Wendy
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Trees
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 2297
Can't see the wood for the !!!
|
The dates are great but the area is a bit far but it isn't as far as some of the internal migrations if they were looking for work in the tin/copper mines
I think we can accept it until proved otherwise Good detection Sherlock
Trees
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
