Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Surnames: Churchill Family Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Re: @ Malcom Churchill, posting Re: Mary Churchill and Roger Jones
Posted by: jane mullis (ID *****2749) Date: May 12, 2011 at 00:09:27
In Reply to: Re: @ Malcom Churchill, posting Re: Mary Churchill and Roger Jones by Malcolm Churchill of 3036

Dear Malcom,
First I want to say to you how deeply I appreciate your response. Next I must tell you it left me breathless. For the past week I have been working on an interpretation for all of this for my formal history, copies of which will be given to each of my father's sibs for their respective families.
I have read your postings that concern the Virginia Churchills, as well as of the northern Churchills and with each one my respect for your reasoning as well as your brilliant interpretation based upon the documentation you cite has increased. I differ to your opinion, and can assure you this will be included in our history , with your permission, of course.

I cannot tell you how much this information means to me in confirming my Chruchill lines. Thank you.
I concur with your reasoning that the Thomas Blakey and Margaret Jones that are recorded in the Christ Church records marriage in 1667 (which is entered twice, the first noting that they are “of this parish”, the second, same date, a few pages down, “England/Wales”) are highly suspect as being the parents of my Churchill Blakey. Obviously a daughter of William’s would not be recorded as being from Wales.
There is though, the entry, albeit five years later in the recoding of a son, Churchill Blakey born to this couple. (I believe I counted no less than five variations of the spelling--but did not put any emphasis on that. It was after concluding this that I read with much interest your article on spelling before standardization was implemented, and it confirmed my thoughts on the matter. That and the nightmares one encounters deciphering census reports!)
One thing that puzzles me, is the fact that there is another Churchill Blakey, born to Thomas and Margaret Blakey into CC at about the time that my Churchill Blakey would have been born.
All of the old journals as well as an entry into the Christ Church registry confirm the marriage of ‘a’ Churchill Blakey to Sarah George, and their subsequent children. The CC records state that their first born was Thomas, the next a daughter, Margaret. (Thomas’ last name was misspelled, again in his entry.) Down the line, two daughters, a Catherine and a Susannah.
Am I wrong in assuming that this Churchill Blakey is my ancestor, with his wife’s George family? Particularly in light of William’s continued association in the Church, as well as Mary Jones and her family, and his family with Elizabeth Wormley? The George family and their allied familes are at least two generations old and established in the congregation.

Might I impose upon your kindness and ask you take a look at this link:

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=seekingthee&id=I1869&style=TEXT

I did not post this, however a descendant to the Catherine Victoria Blakey (my g/g/grandmother)’s brother took the time to commit our lines to the Rootsweb World Connect forum based upon a printout of our mutual history that I sent to her several years ago. I believe everyone on this family chart to be documented by a number of sources and therefore correct.

My working theory, the assumption of my Churchill/Blakey grandmother being a young widow, was based upon the lack CC entries to Margaret (Churchill) Jones’ earlier marriage (that all of the old journals insist upon), therefore it would have taken place in another parish, as did her sister, Mary’s marriage to Roger. Although I don’t believe Margaret’s marriage would have necessarily have been to a brother of Roger, perhaps a cousin though. His family from what I can determine, was equal to William’s at the time in civic, religious, and economic status, thus a likely and suitable candidate for the hands of his daughters.
I think I can account for a possibility (in theory, based upon known dates), that William’s daughter would have been of age to have been a young widow, but will leave that until I have confirmation of the dates I am working with. I have messaged St. Mary’s in North Ashton directly requesting whatever records that they may have for William’s marriage as well as the birth of his daughters. This is contingent upon that information. I will share this information when (if) I receive a response.

I found a sourced statement that “ William Churchill and two other men were added to the parish register membership in 1684.” I believe this to be cited from the Christ Church Vestry Registry. While this was certainly before the births of any of his grandchildren by his daughters it was before their marriages also. Had they been members of that (CC) Parish, their marriages would have been recorded. They would have of course continued to live until their marriages at their father’s home, Bushy Park at the northern end of Middlesex County, and more than likely been allied with an earlier congregation. I believe William’s move in membership would have been based upon his business interest primarily, although he does strike me as a somewhat devout man, otherwise he would have simply stayed put.
Again, I defer to your wisdom.

I do not have a problem with the loss of my immigrant Blakey’s identity, although I was quite saddened to have lost Elizabeth Armistead Wormley as she had long fascinated me. However, a bit of good old southern bragging rights are retained in association with this family as Elizabeth’s first cousin, Judith Armistead d/o Anthony Armistead, her father’s brother, married into the immediate West family of my Immigrant West ancestor an early Jamestown Governor. (I think everyone took turns being the Governor, much like Town Supervisors do in Vermont. --I have a small humble cabin in the Adirondacks, and the local lore of the region strikes me as still working in basics as it did in Colonial times…at times.)

Well, enough for now. Again, I sincerely appreciate your input into this. I will look into the post you suggested. And ask your permission to cite you in my final interpretation

Kind regards,
Jane Freeman Mullis


PS. this has truly been a tremendous help. I have never ceased to be amazed at the kindness and generosity of the wonderful people who, like you, take the time to share their information.


Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/churchill/messages/2880.html
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2007 The Generations Network