Ahh, BISCOE (a mystery)

[nong43]

It's OK, it's getting easier to read Susan's will now...it's a bit like one of those Magic Eye pictures. I can now make out "furniture", "bedsheets" "daughter", "dozen" and "Robert". No apparent mention of Hughenden.

I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that, based on what I've seen, it's my belief that the John Stallion, son of Ruth née Biscoe, is the same as the one who died in Holmer Green in 1764. John son of Ruth was clearly of age when his uncle Moses died, otherwise Moses would have inserted a line saying "when he is of age" or something similar. Then there is the fact that John of Holmer Green called three of his children Ruth, Mary and Moses. Seems a bit of coïncidence otherwise, although I admit that's possible.

I do wonder why there's no record of a Ruth, and I wonder if that's what Mary was called by her family to distinguish her from all the other Marys (her sister-in-law and daughter, for a start). If this is the case, then John and Mary her children would have to have been born earlier than people think. Maybe Ruth/Mary/? died in childbirth, I don't know. (In situations like this, once I have what I feel is enough evidence, I tend to apply the old Sherlock Holmes maxim, i.e., "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".)

As for Robert Biscoe of Hughenden being the same as the one baptised in Wycombe in 1614, the only thing I can think is that if this is the case, perhaps his mother sent him there to look after the land that had belonged to the Lanes.

Based on this, supermoussi, would you be willing to share some of your Lane information with me, or at least let me know where you obtained it? 

Also, did you notice in the National Archive wills, one for a certain John Lane of the "good Ship the Bisco Merchant" in 1696?

Steve - thanks for the burials. I think some of those are the same as on the wills.

Martin

[supermoussi]

No apparent mention of Hughenden.

Note that it was also known as Hitchenden, Hutchendon and many other variations. The Hughenden spelling is relatively new. The H is often written as a "hanging h" which can also camouflage it.

I do wonder why there's no record of a Ruth, and I wonder if that's what Mary was called by her family to distinguish her from all the other Marys (her sister-in-law and daughter, for a start). If this is the case, then John and Mary her children would have to have been born earlier than people think. Maybe Ruth/Mary/? died in childbirth, I don't know. (In situations like this, once I have what I feel is enough evidence, I tend to apply the old Sherlock Holmes maxim, i.e., "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".)

 

If you have a jigsaw puzzle, get it out, throw away half of the pieces, set down the rest on the table and see what picture it forms.

Your logic above largely depends upon the absence of information supposedly pointing to a lack of other options. There are 4 main explanations for your missing bapts imo:-

• Gaps in the registers as a result of damage or illegible writing
• Missing Registers - (perhaps West Wycombe before 1660?) (quite likely where Mary/Ruth's bapts are)
• The 1649-60 Commonwealth Gap (also quite likely where Mary/Ruth's bapts are. see:- http://family-history-research.org/advanced-family-history/commonwealth-gap.html)
• You are looking in the wrong place due to the family moving around

I haven't spent any time on this but have you checked out what happened to the London BISCOs like:-
   
SAINT MARGARET,​WESTMINSTER
   bapt 29 Apr 1640 - John Bisco s. John Bisco,​ Elizabeth
   bapt 14 Sep 1641 - Mary Bisco d. John Bisco
SAINT MARTIN IN THE FIELDS,​WESTMINSTER
   bapt 23 Mar 1650 - Nathaniell Byscoe s. John Byscoe,​ Ann

Also, was there a Berkshire link:-

   Marr 29 Dec 1683 - Cookham,​ Berks - Moses Bisco & Mary Floid

The classic headslap genealogy error you find on webrings and pedigrees is that people want to bend the few remaining facts to advance their own tree. Spanning the mid-1600s without wills is nigh on impossible except in rare cases where it is a rare surname and the PRs of the surrounding area are unusually complete and legible.

Unless you can pin down your BISCOEs exactly you are just playing russian roulette with your tree, and it won't be long before you are researching someone else's ancestors and not your own.

Also, did you notice in the National Archive wills, one for a certain John Lane of the "good Ship the Bisco Merchant" in 1696?

I saw it last week and did wonder. Definitely worth a look.


Sorry if all of the above seems a bit of a downer, but it is all to easy to take the wrong step in paper based genealogy and end up wasting a great deal of time and money on the wrong people...

[nong43]

I was aware that Hughenden had been called Hitchenden, etc., but still can't find any reference to it, sadly, although the will continues to get easier to read.

Regarding the reasons for no information about Ruth/Mary/?'s baptism or marriage, I'd say that whilst there could easily be gaps due to the reasons you stated, I have other records for West Wycombe, where if the records had been destroyed I would expect to have found none at all.

Also, while it would appear that there are no records of the baptisms of four of Robert Biscoe's children, their full birth dates are recorded. Someone was clearly being thorough enough to make note of the details of their births. This was during the Commonwealth Gap.

I can't find any evidence that this particular clutch of Biscoes moved around much at this stage, except to the next parish occasionally.

I don't understand why I can't find a record of Ruth, but, since we have records of Moses her brother, we at least know her father's name. Who his parents were, hard to say with absolute certainty, but his daughters' names being identical to those of Robert of Wycombe's wife and mother is indicative of some link, imo, given the common family naming conventions of the time (although these were not always slavishly adhered to). Plus, as we know, Susan had links to Hughenden herself.

I can't locate the Westminster Biscoes on the pedigree I have, but then not all descendants are on it. Out of interest, does a little "bird's foot" on a pedigree indicate that that individual has descendants not included on that pedigree? Given the origin of the word "pedigree", I did wonder.

(the pedigree can be found here, by the way: http://ia600302.us.archive.org/0/items/pedigreeoffamily00smit/pedigreeoffamily00smit.pdf . I know you are researching the Lanes, but it might still be useful or of interest). There is a mention of a Thomas Biscoe of Swanbourne on page 3.

I wasn't aware of a Berkshire link, but 1683 would make the Hughenden Moses 28 when he married (if it is him), plus his wife was called Mary. Incidentally, John (d. 1764) Stallion had a daughter, Martha, who married a Floyd and had three children, William, Mary and Martha. She (Martha Sr.) predeceased her father, which is why her children are mentioned on John's will.

That said, the Berkshire Moses could be a different one, as I had been under the impression that Moses's wife's maiden name was Ginger, since he mentions his brother-in-law John Ginger.

I've ordered the Rev. John Biscoe's will, which I'm hoping mentions his brother Robert. I don't suppose it will, though. I suspect that I will never be able to conclusively prove a descent from Robert Biscoe and Susan née Lane, although the choice of children's names is suggestive of something. 

Thanks for all your help so far. 

Martin

[supermoussi]

I can't locate the Westminster Biscoes on the pedigree I have, but then not all descendants are on it. Out of interest, does a little "bird's foot" on a pedigree indicate that that individual has descendants not included on that pedigree?

Yes the pedigrees you have are abbreviated and do not show all of the descendant lines. You need to look at wills and PRs yourself to flesh out the tree as there is obviously more info out there.

As well as the reasons I mentioned before as to why you may not be able to find all baptisms the pedigree raises the spectre of another 2:-

• At least one BISCOE went to live in the US before returning to England, so there may be BISCOE baptisms in the US
• At least one BISCOE was a non-conformist so there may be no record of his children's baptisms (quite a common problem in S.Bucks)

There is a mention of a Thomas Biscoe of Swanbourne on page 3.

Did his will say anything interesting that may explain the Lane link?

I wasn't aware of a Berkshire link,

Surely the Cookham marriage is likely connected to the Rev. Samuel BISCOE of Bisham?

the choice of children's names is suggestive of something. 

Robert's brother Richard also used names like Susan, etc...

[alpinecottage]

Also, did you notice in the National Archive wills, one for a certain John Lane of the "good Ship the Bisco Merchant" in 1696?

Martin

This will was made by John Lane of Rotherhithe, about to set sail on the Bisco Merchant, commanded by Capt Francis.  The will appoints John Phillips, waterman of Rotherhithe and his wife Mary as the executors.  As far as I can make out, it instructs the executors to pay his sponsors and the crew if anything happens to John Lane, but doesn't appear to mention John Lane's wife, children (he may not have had any, of course) or other relatives etc.  The writing is fairly clear but very faint in parts.

[nong43]

Yes the pedigrees you have are abbreviated and do not show all of the descendant lines. You need to look at wills and PRs yourself to flesh out the tree as there is obviously more info out there.

Do you know of any sources of wills other than Bucks CC or the National Archives? There don't seem to be many on either, and I already have most of them. (I've ordered Robert Biscoe of Chesham's will (dated 1685) as well, btw - I don't think he'll be closely related to Moses, but you never know - it could still hold useful information).

As well as the reasons I mentioned before as to why you may not be able to find all baptisms the pedigree raises the spectre of another 2:-

• At least one BISCOE went to live in the US before returning to England, so there may be BISCOE baptisms in the US
• At least one BISCOE was a non-conformist so there may be no record of his children's baptisms (quite a common problem in S.Bucks)

Would the former be Richard (d. 1652) and the latter the Rev. John? Re the nonconformists, whilst I can find a couple of pages of them on www.bmdregisters.co.uk, they don't include a Moses or a Ruth, and the dates are too late. That said, I recognise some of the names from the pedigree as descendants of the Rev. John. Do you know of anywhere else that might store nonconformist records?

There is a mention of a Thomas Biscoe of Swanbourne on page 3.

Did his will say anything interesting that may explain the Lane link?

I don't have his will, unfortunately, just the one line that says "Thomas Biscoe (? of Swanbourne, and will in Arch. C. Bucks, 1613)". I presume the question mark refers to his occupation being unknown, not speculation about his place of residence or origin.

Surely the Cookham marriage is likely connected to the Rev. Samuel BISCOE of Bisham?

Ah, that Berkshire link! It's possible, but his surviving children are listed on the pedigree as being alive on the day his will was proved, implying that the author of the pedigree had seen his will. If this is the case, then I would have expected a Moses to be mentioned.

Robert's brother Richard also used names like Susan, etc...

True. They obviously liked her! 

Martin

[nong43]

[...] As far as I can make out, it instructs the executors to pay his sponsors the crew if anything happens to John Lane, but doesn't appear to mention John Lane's wife, children (he may not have had any, of course) or other relatives etc.  The writing is fairly clear but very faint in parts.

That's a shame. Still, I'd be surprised if there weren't a link, even if we never know what it is. I wonder what became of the ship?

Martin

[supermoussi]

Do you know of any sources of wills other than Bucks CC or the National Archives? There don't seem to be many on either, and I already have most of them. (I've ordered Robert Biscoe of Chesham's will (dated 1685) as well, btw - I don't think he'll be closely related to Moses, but you never know - it could still hold useful information).

How many is not many?

Of course, you need to look at a few other counties for wills, e.g. Berks, Middx, Herts

Would the former be Richard (d. 1652) and the latter the Rev. John? Re the nonconformists, whilst I can find a couple of pages of them on www.bmdregisters.co.uk, they don't include a Moses or a Ruth, and the dates are too late. That said, I recognise some of the names from the pedigree as descendants of the Rev. John. Do you know of anywhere else that might store nonconformist records?

Nathaniel & John. Families almost always expermiented with different variations of religion. If some of them were early baptists/methodists/presbyterians there are quite likely to be no records for them.

Ah, that Berkshire link! It's possible, but his surviving children are listed on the pedigree as being alive on the day his will was proved, implying that the author of the pedigree had seen his will. If this is the case, then I would have expected a Moses to be mentioned.

I didn't necessarily mean he was a son; brothers, nephews, cousins often visit other relations (weddings, work, etc) and meet their spouse somehow in the process. Having said this wills do not always list all of someone's children. You quite often find the eldest son is omitted as he has already been given the testator's farm/estate and so has already "had his fair share". Sometimes youngest children are omitted if the testator has a lot of children and not enough money to go around.

True. They obviously liked her! 

Susan was not an uncommon name in the Hughenden so whoever someone married they were quite likely to name a daughter thus.

[supermoussi]

Ahh, I have finally twigged why you called this thread "Ahh, BISCOE" 

But then why post the question if you already knew the answer???