A lookup in the Protestation Returns of 1641 for the Francke family was helpful.
Hundred Parish Forename Surname Notes
Carhampton Carhampton John Francke
Carhampton Timberscombe Alexander Francke
Carhampton Porlock Robert Francke sen
Carhampton Porlock Robert Francke jun
Carhampton Porlock Roger Francke
Carhampton Porlock Walter Francke
Carhampton Porlock Walter Francke
Carhampton Porlock Thomas Francke
Carhampton Porlock John Francke sen
A similar lookup in the Lay Subsidy for 1642 was also helpful
Hundred Parish Forename Surname Other L or G Amount Page Notes
Cannington Timberscombe Alex Franck gent 20 s 195
Cannington Porlocke John Franke sen 1 s 2 d 198 listed as sub collector
Cannington Porlocke Rob Franke jun 1 s 2 d 198 Robert Francke sen listed Cannington Bossington in Porlocke Walter Franke 2 s 3 d 196
Looking for proof of presence for the Franke family at East Linch in 1641. East Linch does not appear as an entity in either of these two returns. However it is interesting that the Protestation Return and the Lay Subsidy Robert Siderfin sen and jun are at Timberscombe along with Alexander Franck and Alexander Franck is mentioned in the Answer to the complaint given by Robert and Ursula Siderfin and their son John and their deceased daughter Wilmot is mentioned as well. We know that Robert at Timberscombe is also associated with East Linch so it would appear that both families are present near or at East Linch and East Linch continues in the Robert 5 (William 4, Robert 3, William 2, John 1) family until all of the lines daughter out at which point I have not made note of what happened to that property but it is into the early to mid 1700s that this land continues with this line. We already know that John Siderfin is at Selworthy (also close to East Linch so can understand why this other Siderfin family was known to the Franck family). Just a bit of logic to understand this document which I do not really need as it doesn't affect the descendancy of the Siderfin family. What is interesting though is the proof that Robert Siderfin married to Ursula Webber has survived to 1653 at least as has his wife and his son John. This does fit with the initial descent that James Sanders proposes but it is the individual Robert baptized in 1656 and married that is in discussion and he does have this Robert married twice, once to Thomasine and once to Elizabeth Blackford and both are incorrect as he married Elizabeth Question of Dunster. But I will continue to transcribe the document simply as it supplies proof for one of my arguments concerning this line of Robert 4 (Robert 3, William 2, John 1) and sets the stage for the changes that I made to the Pedigree Chart for the Robert Siderfin at East Linch and the William Siderfin at Minehead and both sons of a Robert Siderfin namely Robert 6 (Robert 5, William 4, Robert 3, William 2, John 1). The John Siderfin named as the father of Robert Siderfin at East Linch and William Siderfin at Minehead is incorrect. He is likely the father of the John Siderfin baptized 15 Jul 1565 at Wootton Courtney who married first Mary Chapman (listed as unknown on the Pedigree Chart of James Sanders) and second marriage was to Maria Winter bu I can find no descendants of the son Robert from the first marriage to Mary Chapman (baptized 15 Dec 1688 at Selworthy).
More proof for this particular postulation would be welcomed and is perhaps there in the Record Office but I feel with the documents acquired thus far the idea is certainly reasonable and I will proceed with it leaving further proof to others much closer to the registration office than I am!
In general though the Francke family does appear to be more in the Porlock area that the Carhampton/Cannington area. The holding though at Timberscombe does appear to be somewhat more substantial then other holdings at Porlock so there would be a strong desire to retain this piece of property.
Will continue with the transcription today.
Yesterday the sand was completed on the patio and probably the hardest task of this Fall. Another beautiful sunny day perhaps although just 10 degrees celsius at 6:30 a.m. The air quality though is at 54 so will have to work inside probably today. That is always an interesting prospect!
On to the day.
No comments:
Post a Comment