Elizabeth AFTER - What went before?

[Brentor boy]

James Borlace and Elizabeth After married in Redruth on 1 November 1777. The witnesses,  William Smith and John Paynter acted similarly for some other couples and seem unlikely to be related to bride or groom.

There are few references to the name After on the Cornwall OPC site. I can find no obvious record of Elizabeth's baptism nor any that could be that of a sibling. Similarly there is no marriage that has the potential for being that of her parents. I have examined the baptisms in the name of "Eliz A" 1750-60. The only conclusion I have reached is that After could be a corruption of Arthur. Alternatively she could have been born outside Cornwall.

Interestingly when Elizabeth's fourth child, Ann, was baptised in Redruth on 10 Jan 1790 the register was endorsed "pauper". The burial of a James Borlace was recorded in Redruth on 9 May 1789. Could it be that Elizabeth was pregnant when her husband died, forcing her onto "the parish"?

I can recognise no obvious entry for Elizabeth's re-marriage or burial.

With so little to go on I realise that the prospects for identifying Elizabeth more fully are extremely slim but would appreciate any suggestions as to how I might now proceed.

[Brentor boy]

I cannot understand how I previously over looked this.

Marriage,  6 Aug 1794 Redruth. Richard Gray (wid) and Elizabeth Borlace (wid). Witnesses John Luke and Edward Lemin.

I have also found this burial ( which may be of no relevance at all).

9 Aug 1839 Redruth.  Elizabeth Gray, age 87. Workhouse. This would indicate she was aged around 25 when Elizabeth After married James. Even if the two are one and the same it provides little help in establishing her identity.

[Brentor boy]

I am re-activating this thread in the hope that it might attract the attention of someone who missed it first time around.

I will appreciate any thoughts or suggestions that might help me make progress with this brick wall.

[osprey]

one of the problems with Redruth records from that time as that we are reliant on transcripts, scans aren't available on FamilySearch. There are a few other After records, but they look like they should be Arthur.
Baptism Mary After 14 march 1779, dau of Henry & Mary, fits in the gap between Thomas Arthur bp 2 Feb 1777 and Henry bp 25 Dec 1781. Henry Arthur married Mary Harry 30 Nov 1776 all Redruth.
Baptism in Redruth Jane After 23 Apr 1780 daughter of William & Elizabeth, William & Elizabeth Arthur have more children baptised in 1783, 1786 & 1793 in Redruth and 2 in Illogan in 1775 & 1777.
Baptism in Redruth John After 5 May 1792 son of John & Mary, daughter Jennifer Arthur bp 4 may 1788, John Arthur married Mary Nicholas 28 Jan 1788 in Redruth.

There's a baptism in Camborne 10 Nov 1755 of Elisabeth Arthur daughter of David that may be a possible. Two older siblings also bp in Camborne William 1 April 1753 & John 16 June 1751.

 

[Brentor boy]

Osprey - thanks for your response. It reinforces my theory that After and Arthur could be interchangable.

I note the Camborne baptism, but the absence of the name David anywhere in that branch of my tree  causes me to doubt its relevance.

[osprey]

have you the names of the parents of James Borlace? I can see a baptism in Redruth of a James Burlace 20 July 1755 son of Richard & Alice, but those names don't appear in the children of Elizabeth & James either.

I'd meant to mention that the note of pauper on the baptism will be because there was a short lived duty to be paid on baptism entries in parish registers at that period, so noting parents as paupers meant no duty to be paid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stamp_Duties_Act_1783

You could get a copy of the marriage entry from the record office to see who were the witnesses in case this helps.
https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/community-and-living/records-archives-and-cornish-studies/enquiry-and-copy-services/

[Rosinish]

I have noticed many people fail to say words properly & are inclined to use 'f' for 'th' & somehow miss out the letter 'r' i.e. Arthur in that speech may have been Afer, hence the morphing of the name into After   

Just my thought   

Annie

[Redroger]

May I throw a brick into the pond? Many years ago I had a work colleague surnamed ANSWER, which is a very rare surname with around 40 instances in the UK in 2002. I did a little research as to its origins and reached the conclusion that it was a corruption of the fairly common midland surname ENSOR. Hope this is helpful.

[Rosinish]

I can understand the Answer/Ensor quite easily but the actual pronunciation didn't change apart from the initial letter which could have been down to accents whereas Arthur & After are pronounced very differently 

Annie