RootsChat.Com

England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Wiltshire => Topic started by: MattD30 on Friday 22 January 16 23:47 GMT (UK)

Title: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: MattD30 on Friday 22 January 16 23:47 GMT (UK)
Does anyone have any info on Murcocks (or Moorecocks) in Wanborough during the 1640s.

Matt
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: pinefamily on Friday 22 January 16 23:54 GMT (UK)
What is it that you are looking for? What data do you already have, to save people's time?
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: MattD30 on Saturday 23 January 16 00:50 GMT (UK)
What is it that you are looking for? What data do you already have, to save people's time?

I am trying to identify a Joan Moorcock (or Murecocke) who was married in the 1670s (if I remember right) but I don't have all my dates and details to hand just now. I will post another follow up message tomorrow.

Matt
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: trish1120 on Saturday 23 January 16 04:43 GMT (UK)
Is this her?

Joane MORCOCK Marriage 27 May 1680, Wanborough, Wiltshire
Spouse Henry DORE
(Source Familysearch.Org)
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: pinefamily on Saturday 23 January 16 05:37 GMT (UK)
Or the Joane Morcoke who married Henry Illes in 1665 in Wanborough (no further info on the date). Familysearch.org
Familysearch throws up 432 results for Moorcock in Wanborough (baptisms, marriages, burials).

Edit: make that 173 results; there are some census records after the Wanborough records.  :)
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: pinefamily on Saturday 23 January 16 05:44 GMT (UK)
There are two possible Joane/Jane Moorcock baptisms, one in 1632, the other in 1642. Bear in mind that the 1680 marriage may be a Joane Moorcock who was born in the 1650's, when some parishes did not record events, during the Cromwell Protectorate.
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: MattD30 on Sunday 24 January 16 00:21 GMT (UK)
Mine is the Joan who married Henry Ills in Wanborough in 1665. I have so far identified 3 possible candidates for her but working out which is her is proving problematic.

Firstly there is a Joan Murcock born in 1618 (daughter of Thomas)
Secondly there is a Joane Murcocke born in 1621 (daughter of Robert)
Thirdly there is a Joane Murcock born in 1632 (daughter of Thomas) however she appears to have died as there is a burial of Joan Murcocke daughter of Thomas in 1637.

Henry and Joan had the following children:

Henry 1667
William 1668
Ann 1670
Mary 1677
Ruth 1687

If it is the Joan born 1621 who married Henry then she would have been about 66 when Ruth was born, something I find unlikely. If my Joan is the one born in 1618 she would have been even older.

Henry was born in 1641 (son of Thomas Ills) and so I suspect Joan was also born around the 1640s

My ancestor was their son Henry, however I have today found a baptism of a second Henry in 1680. I don't know if it is the same family as no father is named and I've not found a burial for the Henry born in 1667. If Henry and Joan did have a second son named Henry then this causes me a temporary problem as my Henry was married in 1691.

Very puzzling.
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: pinefamily on Sunday 24 January 16 03:24 GMT (UK)
That burial could be of the father, Henry.
This could be your Joan. https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NDYY-XVX
I have seen Joan and Jane interchanged in that era before.
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: MattD30 on Sunday 24 January 16 17:59 GMT (UK)
That burial could be of the father, Henry.
This could be your Joan. https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NDYY-XVX
I have seen Joan and Jane interchanged in that era before.

Thanks. I don't know why I didn't see this Joan/Jane before as I have also seen the names interchanged. Perhaps I just didn't think to look for the variation. So thanks again.

Which burial do you think is for Henry snr?

Matt
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: pinefamily on Sunday 24 January 16 20:41 GMT (UK)
Which burial do you think is for Henry snr?

Matt

My mistake. I had misread your post. Probably didn't have my reading glasses on.  :-[
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: pinefamily on Sunday 24 January 16 20:55 GMT (UK)
I am having trouble finding any Illes burials anywhere in Wiltshire. Did the family move, or stay in Wanborough?
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: MattD30 on Thursday 01 March 18 21:54 GMT (UK)
After a year of not much progress with this line I've now managed to finally get somewhere.

I've recently discovered the 1671 Will of Anne Morcocke of Wanborough. Although Joane/Jane isn't mentioned this Anne is certainly her mother as she mentions her son in law Henry Iles (who she makes her executor) as well as her grandchildren Henry Iles, William Iles, and Anne Iles. This fits exactly with what I already know.

Unfortunately Anne is described as a widow in the Will so I still don't know who her husband was, however she does mention a number of other key people including her sons Thomas Morcocke and William Morcocke, as well as her brother William Reade.

This has given me quite a few new leads and I'm now able to make progress with these now.

Matt
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: ribbo39 on Wednesday 07 March 18 05:02 GMT (UK)
Hi MattD30,

If, as you say, Anne Morcocke is the mother, then this marriage in Wanboro' might tie it all up;
21-6-1641 Thomas Murcocke - m - Anne Cowles, botp

also 10-2-1664/5 Henry Illes - m - Joanne Morcoke, botp.

However, mentioning her brother as William Reade, there are these entries all Wanboro';

31-1-1617/8 William Reade s/o William, jnr
30-9-1635        "            "       "        "
31-3-1622    Anne         "     d/o       "

I hope this isn't confusing the issue.


Alan
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: MattD30 on Wednesday 07 March 18 13:25 GMT (UK)
Hi MattD30,

If, as you say, Anne Morcocke is the mother, then this marriage in Wanboro' might tie it all up;
21-6-1641 Thomas Murcocke - m - Anne Cowles, botp

also 10-2-1664/5 Henry Illes - m - Joanne Morcoke, botp.

However, mentioning her brother as William Reade, there are these entries all Wanboro';

31-1-1617/8 William Reade s/o William, jnr
30-9-1635        "            "       "        "
31-3-1622    Anne         "     d/o       "

I hope this isn't confusing the issue.


Alan

Hi Alan

Thanks for those bits of info, I will follow those up this afternoon.

I've looked at a number of other Murcocke Wills and also Read [or Reade] Wills  from the same period and they also seem to either mention the same people, or be witnessed by the same person.

Anne mentioned her 'good friend Henry Philips" and he appears as a witness on her Will and several other Wills. I've compared the signatures and they are almost identical leading me to believe they could be by the same person.

There are several Read/Reade Wills which I have looked at but none mention Anne so far, however it could be that when she says "my brother" she means "brother in law". Alternatively if she was Anne Cowles was a widow when she married Thomas Murcocke then Reade could be her maiden name [I have another ancestor in Sussex who was married three times which made it hard to trace her burial as her name kept changing].

I have a number  of Murcock Wills to go through as well.

The 1664/5 marriage of Henry Illes and Joanne Morcocke in Wanborough certainly fits in with what I have. I have this marriage in my files but for some reason I didn't have the full date on the tree I am working from.

The Reades that you mentioned look promising as well and I will follow these up. As I mentioned before I have looked at a number of Reade Wills (some from the PCC and some from the Wiltshire archives) and I'm pretty sure they are connected. Unfortunately last night my laptop decided to wipe all the Wills and info I had save to my USB stick - including all the Wills! Thankfully I have a note of all the references and I have already printed some out so I can download them again.

Many thanks again and I will follow all this up today. I'm pretty sure there must be some connection.

Matt
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: MattD30 on Thursday 08 March 18 21:34 GMT (UK)
Hi

The following extracts are from the Will of Anne Murcock [1671] which show the links to the Iles and Reade families.

The first extract mentions her son in law Henry Iles and the second extract mentions two key people - her 'beloved friend Henry Phillips' and also 'William Reade the elder' who is described as "my brother".

I am just wondering if this name is Reade or perhaps Roade or something else.

The Reade christenings found by ribbo39 would seem to fit with what I have already. The Anne Reade (chr 1622) would be about the right age to be my Anne, and the William who was christened in 1617/18 would be the right age to be the older brother she mentions in her Will.

The witnesses to this Will, Henry Phillips and Margery Chamberlayne also provide some useful clues but I'll go into those in a second post.

Anyhow it would be great if someone could confirm William's surname in the second extract posted here.

Many thanks

Matt



 
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: ribbo39 on Thursday 08 March 18 21:56 GMT (UK)
Hello Matt,

If you haven't already done so, I would suggest posting the full doc.  on the deciphering board and enlisting help there.
I have had considerable success there with some of my "olde english writinges"

To me the name certainly looks like Reade.

Alan
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: smudwhisk on Thursday 08 March 18 22:17 GMT (UK)
I would agree with Alan, his surname is Reade rather than Roade.  On the other examples of "o" the letter isn't joined to the next letter but the "e"s are.  Its typical of an "e" for that period.

As to Murcock, you probably already know that Mulcock and Murcot are often inter-used with it.  I've a sideline in Highworth from Little Coxwell.  In the Faringdon records they appear as Murcot and Morcock but subsequently as Mulcock in the Highworth registers and the Wills associated with the family.
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: MattD30 on Thursday 08 March 18 22:43 GMT (UK)
Hello Matt,

If you haven't already done so, I would suggest posting the full doc.  on the deciphering board and enlisting help there.
I have had considerable success there with some of my "olde english writinges"

To me the name certainly looks like Reade.

Alan

Hi Alan

I did think of posting the whole thing but I think the file size is too big for Rootchat and thankfully I can read it as it is fairly clear except in a few minor places.

Another interesting thing here is that Anne mentions an Anne Chamberlayne in the last part of the Will as well as her Iles grandchildren [see attached image], and the Will was witnessed by Margery Chamberlayne and Henry Phillips. Margery Chamberlayne is almost certainly the Margery Murcocke who married Henry Chamberlayne in 1642, and she had a sister named Margaret Murcocke who married Thomas Phillips in 1643. Thomas himself had a brother who was named - Henry Phillips! This Margery Chamberlayne and Henry Phillips would therefore be related to Anne.

Also I've looked at a number of other Reade family Wills and Henry Phillips appears on them as a witness as well.

These people are obviously related.

Matt
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: MattD30 on Thursday 08 March 18 22:48 GMT (UK)
I would agree with Alan, his surname is Reade rather than Roade.  On the other examples of "o" the letter isn't joined to the next letter but the "e"s are.  Its typical of an "e" for that period.

As to Murcock, you probably already know that Mulcock and Murcot are often inter-used with it.  I've a sideline in Highworth from Little Coxwell.  In the Faringdon records they appear as Murcot and Morcock but subsequently as Mulcock in the Highworth registers and the Wills associated with the family.

Hi

Thanks for that info and confirming the name as Reade. I must admit that Reade was my initial reading of the name but then I wondered if I was wrong lol!

I haven't come across Mulcock and Murcot as variations of the surname so I will keep an eye out for those, as well as Murlcocke and Murcote (I've seen Murcock with and without an 'e').

More for me to ponder here

Matt
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: ribbo39 on Thursday 08 March 18 22:54 GMT (UK)
Hi Matt,

When I seek help in deciphering I usually produce the image to my desktop and then reduce the size
to about 500 Kbs ( acceptable to Rootschat) before attaching it to my request.

I have always been able to zoom in and see it the contents clearly, despite it appearing in miniature.

Alan
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: MattD30 on Thursday 08 March 18 23:10 GMT (UK)
Hi Matt,

When I seek help in deciphering I usually produce the image to my desktop and then reduce the size
to about 500 Kbs ( acceptable to Rootschat) before attaching it to my request.

I have always been able to zoom in and see it the contents clearly, despite it appearing in miniature.

Alan

Hi Alan

I've just checked the file size of the whole Will and page 1 is 416.2KB and page 2 is 1MB. I also have an inventory which is 466.5KB in size.

I could post the first page of the Will but would need to reduce the file size of the second page and post that as a separate image. Unfortunatly I can't get the second page under 500KB unless I divide it in half as the writing goes very close to the edge. How would you get it reducded in file size?

Matt
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: ribbo39 on Friday 09 March 18 02:24 GMT (UK)
Hi Matt,

I don't know whether you are using a PC or an iMac.

I'm using the latter and when I double click on an image on my desktop, it opens up in my case with
a "preview app". Going to Tools, drop down to re-size and it should say current size with an option to "Customise" it. Click on custom to reveal various settings and select each one in turn untill you get to a size acceptable to Rootschat.

As an example, I've just d/loaded a page from an original parish register which comes at a size of 2.2MB.  It can safely be reduced down to 435KB which when done looks so small. But you can zoom and still read the contents.
I can't send any images on this forum but can send some with a PM if you wish?

Alan
Title: Re: Mur[e]cock [Moorecock]
Post by: MattD30 on Friday 09 March 18 14:02 GMT (UK)
Hi Matt,

I don't know whether you are using a PC or an iMac.

I'm using the latter and when I double click on an image on my desktop, it opens up in my case with
a "preview app". Going to Tools, drop down to re-size and it should say current size with an option to "Customise" it. Click on custom to reveal various settings and select each one in turn untill you get to a size acceptable to Rootschat.

As an example, I've just d/loaded a page from an original parish register which comes at a size of 2.2MB.  It can safely be reduced down to 435KB which when done looks so small. But you can zoom and still read the contents.
I can't send any images on this forum but can send some with a PM if you wish?

Alan

Hi Alan

I use a PC running Windows 10. Would your method work on this?

Interestingly I have now found another connection between the Murcocke and Reade families. I have been looking at a number of Reade Wills in the PCC and there is mention of the Murcocks in the 1613 Will of Robert Reade of Wanbrough. In his Will Robert forgives Thomas Murocke and his son (also named Thomas) a debt which they owe to Robert.

“Item I forgive to Thomas Murcocke the father and Thomas Murcock the son the debt of seven shillings four pence which they owe me”

so it's clear the families knew each other.

I am starting to strongly suspect that Anne Reade was married to Thomas Murcock but I doubt I will find the marriage. There appear to be too many connections between the Murcocke, Reade and Phillips families for it to be a coincidence.

Expect another update later after work......

Matt