Cubert and Perranzabuloe Parish Register lookups please - MITCHELL

[krisesjoint]

Hi,

I don't think the Thomas MITCHELL Blanch TRENERY St Agnes marriage is the correct one - reason - When I found a Thomas born to them in I think 1751 Perranzabuloe (right when I was looking for something about that time) I liked it until I noted they had a second son Thomas in 1855 - too late for a 1871 marriage. Although Jane's age lists as 69 so only 16 at marriage if that is correct. Thomas's 76 is quite clear but ages at death are only as good as the person providing the information.

The early Cubert Baptisms in particular are in a terrible sate. Faded and full of holes - water damage rodents etc. Some pages particularly that 1772-1812 era baptisms are burials are really bad - very little of some pages at all.

Maybe one day when they have been filmed and can be enhanced on a computer a little more may be readable. At this stage with a microfiche reader even with a date a lot of it I still can't read.

It is only after the forms arrive in 1813 that more detail is given at baptism and burial. Prior to that time all there is is a line in the parish records. These are just something like "*** Son/dau of *** and ** was baptised ****" or "*** *** was buried ***" - with a child or wife it MAY (but not always) say "*** son/dau/wife of *** was buried ***"

Cheers Kris 

[krisesjoint]

IGI extracted records batch C023611 listed the baptisms to Thomas and Jane as

James 9 Aug 1772
Jane 14 May 1775
Samuel 6 Oct 1777
Thomas 10 Jun 1780
Anthony 21 May 1783
William 18 Feb 1786
John 12 Oct 1789

The LDS did a great job transcribing these. Most of them I can't read the entire entry even with their help with the dates to locate the entries.

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/frameset_search.asp?PAGE=igi/search_IGI.asp&clear_form=true

BTW The second Thomas born to Thomas and Blanch in Perranzabuloe appears to have been baptised in 1765

There are baptisms listed in Cubert C023611 to

Nicholas and Charity, James and Mary, Joseph and Diana, in the 1720's and 30's. Latest being only 1 in the 1740's and nothing listed around 1750. By what I could see on the fiche I did not spot anything about the right time either.

Cheers Kris 

[Limeburner Mitchell]

Hi,

I don't think the Thomas MITCHELL Blanch TRENERY St Agnes marriage is the correct one - reason - When I found a Thomas born to them in I think 1751 Perranzabuloe (right when I was looking for something about that time) I liked it until I noted they had a second son Thomas in 1855 - too late for a 1871 marriage. Although Jane's age lists as 69 so only 16 at marriage if that is correct. Thomas's 76 is quite clear but ages at death are only as good as the person providing the information.

The early Cubert Baptisms in particular are in a terrible sate. Faded and full of holes - water damage rodents etc. Some pages particularly that 1772-1812 era baptisms are burials are really bad - very little of some pages at all.

Maybe one day when they have been filmed and can be enhanced on a computer a little more may be readable. At this stage with a microfiche reader even with a date a lot of it I still can't read.

It is only after the forms arrive in 1813 that more detail is given at baptism and burial. Prior to that time all there is is a line in the parish records. These are just something like "*** Son/dau of *** and ** was baptised ****" or "*** *** was buried ***" - with a child or wife it MAY (but not always) say "*** son/dau/wife of *** was buried ***"

Cheers Kris 

Wow, there's some really great information here Kris for anyone interested in getting information out of the Cubert registers in the 18th century!  Almost should be stickied somewhere appropriate for Cubert researchers - not that I think RootsChat is set up for that sort of parish-level resourcing.  There's certainly no indication on the GenUKI page that the registers are anything other than intact. 

I have seen quite a few marriages online in the Cornwall OPC Database but the gaps between them indicate the problem (eg none between 1704 and 1711).  It seems to have been quite a sizeable/populous parish so there's little chance the gaps can be explained by anything other than damage.  Great shame. 

I think you are correct about the Mitchell/Trenery union.  I suspect our Mitchells haven't moved into the parish around this time at all, but have lived there all along, and are simply hidden by the deterioration of the registers. 

Regarding your next post, many thanks for Thomas and Jane's children.  Jane seems to be the daughter of James Adams and Jane Watts, christened 26 Dec 1746 in Cubert.  That matches acceptably well with her death at burial in 1814 being 69. 

Interesting that the first named children are James and Jane.  Either Jane got a go at naming her first two children after her parents (fair enough - she'd done the 9 months of heavy lifting both times after all!) or perhaps coincidentally Thomas' father was also James?  Perhaps even (*wild speculation alert*) the James and Mary you mention whose apparent first children in Cubert appear in the 1730s?  The other names you mention - Nicholas and Charity (Webb), Joseph and Diana (Bradford) don't get a look in.  Not that childrens' names are always an ideal indicator of possible ancestry, but it seems there's usually a reasonable correlation. 

I've got a bit to look into now I have all this information.  I'd love to know where in Cubert The Point was (where Thomas and Jane Mitchell died and where their grandson John Mitchell was living when he baptised my 3 x great grandfather William).  I've a few first names to use in other searches to see whether I can fill in the gaps in Cubert registers through other means.  I know I can reliably find other post-1800 baptisms like Thomas and Mary's children in the IGI.  And along with the Gummows I have very very high degrees of certainty that there are Adams ancestors and Pearce ancestors to trace. 

Maybe I'll start another thread to explore each of the Gummow, Adams and Pearce lines (although I suspect the same problems that prevent us getting further back with the Mitchells will affect the latter 2 Cubert-based families ... for instance I have reason to believe that Mary Pearce's parents may have been Martin and Elizabeth Pearce but no baptism record appears to exist for any of their children other than Joan in 1767). 

That's more than enough for now.  I have a little fella to get ready for bed!

Once again, many thanks for all your help Kris!  All the best with your research and with your grandson!  I hope to catch up again soon!

Grant Limeburner Mitchell, getting closer to mapping out the tree of these infernally elusive Cubert Mitchells thanks to Kris!

[krisesjoint]

Hi Grant,

Actually Cubert is quite a small parish compared too most I have fiche for. Baptisms and burials 1772-1812 is only two lines on the fiche. One fiche holds 5 lines.

Unfortunately most records I have on fiche have sections which are in poor shape particularly in the older registers. Hopefully when they filmed and can be computer enhanced we may be able to read a little more. With a reader all I can do is look. I can't enlarge or enhance what I am looking at.

Looking for Mary I think I see something. 

Name missing but looks like it ends in y D of Martin and (longish name with hole, only through you mentiong Elizabeth I think that may be what it says) PEARCE of (sorry I can't work it out it looks something like Porran/Parrian there is a dot over something at the end Apr [12 ]? 1784 Cubert (its on the same page as Anthony MITCHELL.

Cheers Kris 

[krisesjoint]

MMM.......It is on the IGI they say Mary and parents are Walter and Elizabeth. I am sitting here looking at it and I really don't see Walter. There only appears to be one tall letter not two. I have tried a magnifying glass and I still think its Martin not Walter. Although M's and W's often appear similar it looks like an M to me. When I first looked at the film I didn't hesitate with Martin and even now when I quickly look back at the reader from the keyboard or computer screen I instanly see Martin. You could order the film in to your local LDS family history library and see what you can make of it yourself or alternatively purchase a copy from the CRO. Their printout will hopefully be more conclusive. They do always try to get the best prinout possible.

http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=14710

The ony Walter Elizabeth union I can spot is in Roche 1763

Cheers Kris 

[Limeburner Mitchell]

Again, really terrific work Kris!!!  You are a gem!

I will certainly be ordering a printout of this entry from the CRO. 

I saw this in the IGI and the name 'Walter' just didn't sit right with me.  I don't want to sound obsessed with the patronymic/matronymic naming thing, but there are no Walters among Thomas and Mary's children.  They are:

 JOHN MICHELL: Christening: 23 AUG 1807 Cubert, Cornwall, England
 
 ELIZABETH MICHELL: Christening: 05 NOV 1809 Cubert, Cornwall, England
 
 SIMON MITCHELL: Christening: 02 MAY 1813 Cubert, Cornwall, England
 
 MARY MICHELL: Christening: 21 APR 1816 Cubert, Cornwall, England
 
 MARTIN MITCHELL: Christening: 10 MAY 1820 Cubert, Cornwall, England 

So although Thomas and Mary had three shots at christening a boy 'Walter' after the mother's father, they didn't take the opportunity.  (Not that it always follows that the father gets honoured through the names of their grandchildren - my William Mitchell had 5 sons and not one of them was christened 'John' after his father ... mind you, William was married very young to his 7 months pregnant girl at the St Columb Register Office instead of at church, maybe not reflecting so well on a father who was a Wesleyan Lay Preacher, perhaps there might have been just a bit of a falling out there ... ). 

So anyhow, Thomas and Mary didn't use 'Walter' but they did use 'Martin', and he was christened as such on the day his mother was laid to rest.  Also, the name 'Martin' never appears to have been used before in this Mitchell line, so there should be some compelling reason to use it above other choices.  (Mind you, I'm not sure about 'Simon' either, but that's another story - and I haven't dug back into the Pearce/Adams families much yet of course!) 

When I read the transcription of 'Walter' in the IGI I checked the Cornwall Parish Database and, like you Kris, found Walter and Elizabeth marrying in Roche in 1763.  It's not out of the realm of possibility that we are talking about a Cubert christening record for one of their children.  However it does seem a remote possibility, especially given elapsed time from marriage to christening, some distance between parishes and the seeming lack of evidence that Walter existed otherwise in Cubert.  Contrasting with that, there is a Martin Pearce in Cubert - marrying Elizabeth Lawer on St Valentine's Day 1767.  Thomas and Mary's first daughter is christened 'Elizabeth'.  Also, although it doesn't look like it in type, it's not impossible for someone transcribing a damaged old register in copperplate writing to confuse 'Walter' for 'Marten' or 'Martin'.  You've demonstrated how confusing and subjective the interpretation can be most ably in your last response - even worse when you're dealing with the limitations of the microfiche reader!

I guess these things explain why I had the hunch about 'Martin' and why I agree that getting the printout might help.  Although now that, like you, I'm a bit convinced about 'Walter' being 'Martin', I'll need to show it to some independent third parties to get an objective interpretation! 

Kindest regards

Grant Limeburner Mitchell 

[Limeburner Mitchell]

... I don't want to sound obsessed with the patronymic/matronymic naming thing, but there are no Walters among Thomas and Mary's children ... [their last son] 'Martin' ... was christened as such on the day his mother was laid to rest.  Also, the name 'Martin' never appears to have been used before in this Mitchell line, so there should be some compelling reason to use it above other choices. 

... there is a Martin Pearce in Cubert - marrying Elizabeth Lawer on St Valentine's Day 1767 ... Also, although it doesn't look like it in type, it's not impossible for someone transcribing a damaged old register in copperplate writing to confuse 'Walter' for 'Marten' or 'Martin'.  You've demonstrated how confusing and subjective the interpretation can be most ably in your last response - even worse when you're dealing with the limitations of the microfiche reader!

I guess these things explain why I had the hunch about 'Martin' and why I agree that getting the printout [from the Cornwall Record Office] might help.  Although now that, like you, I'm a bit convinced about 'Walter' being 'Martin', I'll need to show it to some independent third parties to get an objective interpretation! 

Hi again Kris and thread readers.

It's been a little while since there's been any action on this thread.  I've since received a printout of the register entry for Mary Pearce's birth from the CRO.  As I have committed to not reproducing anything I've purchased from them (and fair enough too), I can't attach an image of the printout for readers to make up their own minds. 

I'm not sure whether the register entry that's been copied for me is a transcription or not, because it doesn't seem quite as damaged as the entry quoted by Kris below:

Looking for Mary I think I see something. 

Name missing but looks like it ends in y D of Martin and (longish name with hole, only through you mentiong Elizabeth I think that may be what it says) PEARCE of (sorry I can't work it out it looks something like Porran/Parrian there is a dot over something at the end Apr [12 ]? 1784 Cubert (its on the same page as Anthony MITCHELL.

Cheers Kris 

The style of handwriting on the CRO's copy of the record certainly indicates it's probably original, and it's on the same page as Anthony MITCHELL. 

I have sought a completely objective view of what the record says.  With little hesitation, the verdict was:

"Mary D of Martin and Elizabeth Pearce, of Perran. April 12th"

So if that's right Kris, I think our hunches about, and interpretations of, that birth entry are correct.  Which means the IGI transcription of "Walter" might need correcting!

The dot at the end of "Perran" is interesting.  As it's the only place name recorded on the page of baptisms, it makes me think it's probably because it's from outside the parish.  So, although married in Cubert in 1767, I think by 1784 the Pearces may have been living in Perranzabuloe. 

I'd love to see whether there's any evidence of Martin or Elizabeth Pearce or their children in Perranzabuloe around that time. 

Thanks again for your advice Kris    It's definitely been worthwhile getting copies of records from the lovely people at CRO.  (I also have Thomas and Jane's marriage entry, their son Thomas' baptism and John Mitchell's baptism and marriage - all great stuff.)

Kind regards

Grant Limeburner Mitchell, enjoying another rare ten minutes at the computer