Hi Tony You wrote: --------------- Can I bother you about Mary RULE while I'm on this THOMAS clan? You have Mary the daughter of John RULE and Mary PERKING (baptised 29 Mar 1725) as the wife of John THOMAS, marrying in 1760. I know you must have your reasons. There are researchers out there who think that John THOMAS actually married a much younger Mary RULE, the daughter of Henry RULE and Mary BORLASE, baptised on 28 Mar 1742. I think whichever Mary RULE it is, we get quickly back to the same ancestry, as John RULE (b 1694) is a half-brother of Henry (b 1710/11). Naming patterns do suggest it is the older Mary (she had a brother called Stephen, a name appearing in the next THOMAS generation). And of course her last child is born in 1766, which would be early if it is the younger Mary. Have you any other thoughts that would make this more conclusive? As for the identity of John THOMAS, husband of Mary RULE, one feels very little hope.... --------------- First of all, no bother. And I have the same amount of hope as you in regard to the identity of John THOMAS. So, to Mary RULE... You have outlined some of the reasons why I went for the older Mary - I think the main reasons, perhaps, were that there were only three THOMAS children - Mary bapt 1761 (m 1785 Richard LUKE, I think), James bapt 1763 (m 1791 Jane RULE) and Jane bapt 1766 (fate unknown), and, as you say, the occurrence of the name Stephen in the THOMAS line. The younger Mary RULE, dau of Henry RULE and Mary BORLASE/BORLACE, might have been the one who was married by licence in 1761 to William BENNATTS - but with your interest in that surname, perhaps you can say definitively. This Mary's older brother, James RULE (bapt 1736) seems to be the one who married 1760 to Ann BENNETT (with children Francis 1765, Anne 1767 and Richard 1770). I kind of liked the theory that brother and sister RULE married the sister and brother BENNETT/BENNATTS - but I don't know if William BENNATTS and Ann BENNETT were so connected. Another possible marriage for the younger Mary RULE is 1773 to John BOWDEN, but I haven't followed up on that at all. It would be great to find some wills or other evidence connected to all of these families, to give us a more solid base. In the mean time, I'll stick with my tentative conclusion, and hope that someone can successfully challenge or prove it! All the best Peter

Hi Peter You have made some excellent points. And I have had a look at these BENNETTS/RULE marriages and I think we have a workable set of hypotheses! I think William BENNETTS (baptised 24 May 1741) and Anne BENNETTS (baptised 14 Nov 1737) are indeed a pair of siblings who married a pair of RULE siblings. They are both children of William BENNETTS and Ann BASTIAN. William senior's will does not mention the marriage status of any of his daughters. How inconsiderate! But this does fit. Anne BENNETTS and James RULE (baptised 11 Jan 1735/36) had children named William and Anne (after her parents), and Francis (presumably after one of her brothers, Francis BENNETTS bapt 22 Apr 1744); they also named a son Richard presumably after one of James' brothers. This is all helpful. In the case of the other couple, William BENNETTS and Mary RULE (let's assume she is the one baptised 28 Mar 1742) named a son Samuel, presumably after one of William's brothers; they also have a William, Mary and Richard. Incidentally Mary BENNETTS, a widow, is buried in 1813, aged 73 (near enough). (There is no Henry anywhere, after the RULE father, but at least they're consistent.) So this does seem to take Mary RULE 1742 out of the equation for the marriage to John THOMAS in 1760. We can't look at any naming patterns from the THOMAS side as we don't know who John is, but if it is Mary RULE baptised 29 Mar 1725, they have children named after her mother (Mary) and one of her sisters (Jane). My earlier comment about the occurrence of the name Stephen in the next generation is I think a red herring. James THOMAS 1763 and Jane RULE 1767 have a son called Stephen, but that is the name of one of Jane's brothers. However, neatly, that Jane RULE is a daughter of John RULE 1731/32, and he is a brother of Mary RULE 1725, so we have a nice cousinly marriage between James and Jane. All sorted? It looks convincing enough for now, anyway, and I can happily accept Mary RULE 1725 as the wife of John THOMAS. Incidentally, the absence of John THOMAS - actually of two of them, as there is another who married Prudence WOOLCOCK in Camborne in 1757 and must be about the same age - from the Camborne baptisms suggests that they both migrated from elsewhere, but where is anyone's guess. There is a good candidate from St Kew. If you think that's a bit far, it is less than the distance that my ancestor Richard CLIFTON moved at about the same period, from Week St Mary to Camborne. The Camborne area was of course rapidly expanding at this time. Another example is Morris THOMAS who was in Camborne in the 1730s and 1740s, who came from St Austell originally. We don't want it to be easy, though, do we...? all the best Tony Tony Bennett Cheshire, UK

This is a neat little bit of analysis to sort out who's who. Thanks very much - it's very instructive. I was also interested that your THOMASes could have moved from St Kew to the Camborne area. Mine appear to be going the other way. I have been curious as to what would make people move a reasonable distance like this. I have Richard ROSKELLY (lots of variant spellings) and his wife Avis (nee THOMAS) who married at St Keverne, baptised their first child there in 1695 but by the baptism of the next child in 1696 were in St Kew. It seems quite a long way really - 50 miles or so by road. They'd have had to walk, wouldn't they? Maybe a cart for their belongings? Richard's brother John and his wife Mary CHEIFER made the same trip a bit later sometime between 1709 and 1714. Why would they go to St Kew and leave the rest of the kin behind? Just wondering.... Best wishes, Irene