Running Down James Venning

   There is a problem with which James is the James in a number of situations. For me it starts with which James is the James who married Catherine Edgcombe Hender. For others it is which James is it who is the husband of Betty VENNING? And along the way there is both shody genealogical work and half truths to sort through, not to mention social rathers. For I for one would rather not have Catheringe Edgcombe HENDER marry her own near cousin James VENNING. They are just too closely related, but I understand to resolve inheritance and heirship contentions, it did occur, if not merely because they were 'kissing cousins'. Since that is my first concern in the matter, I'll present here a brief line pedegree which sets out just how near of cousins they are.

Now how convienent it is that the 'HENDER' pedigree offers a ready 'cousin' James VENNING to be there to marry Catherine Edgcombe HENDER? Nothing like marrying your first cousin's daughter. But is that what really happened? Now either for the shear convience of it or whether for rock solid evidence, a number of 'genealogists' have made that connect. That is 'cousins' James and Catherine married. But did they? Were there not other available James VENNINGS in the Altarnun neighborhood? In fact there were. Three James VENNINGS right there in Altarnun who could fit, another in nearby St Clether and still another of South Petherwin. So what really is the answer? I'd like to know.

Should we look at 'Ancestry.com'?

NOT SO FAST. Ancestry.com has been known to have errors in the genealogies that are presented there. And in looking over their information one such error is detected in that William Hender VENNING DID NOT marry Mary LUSKEY. He married 'Mary Luskey PETER'. Another cousin=cousin marriage but very distantly related cousins by descent from LUSKEY through some gererations of the PETER family. Yes she was born about 1811. How about Mary Luskey PETER c 9 Oct 1810, the daughter of Arthur PETER and Harriet SLEEP.

In fact a study of the 1841, 1851 and 1861 Census record produces some evidence that suggests this James VENNING, son of Daniel VENNING, married Betty VENNING. Check out the evidence which follows.

Betty's baptism was done on January 22 of 1781 thus she may actually have been born in the last part of 1780. She may be nearly 2 years older than James. Her parents are Christopher and Elizabeth VENNING.

This is the baptims set of evidence which is consistent with the rest of the evidence.

So such a record can give both solid evidence, such as their surnames being both VENNING and varying degrees of supportive evidence. Daniel VENNING as witness may or may not be the father of James VENNING, but it suggest the name Daniel in one of the families and can be seen as supporting evidence. Also the fact that James is listed as a Bachelor and Betty as a Spinster may generally be suggestive of age though there are no age information given.

Neither lived to be on the 1871 Census, so we can only check to see if they are there and together on the 1841, 1851 and 1861 Census records.

In both 1851 and 1861 the census record ages are consistent with the baptism or presumed birth dates. James was born 'during the year' so the census may have hit before it in one year before and after in the other. Betty's is just solidly consistent. In '51 it is still Trezebbett and in '61 they list the community of Treween instead. As the burial records show both, one on each as Trezibbett and on the other as Treween, it all hangs together.

Well it looks like Ancestry.com, or they who 'present' on it their determined genealogy, have botched it again. James VENNING whose baptism and presumed birth is in 1782 DID NOT marry Catherine Edgcombe HENDER. That James VENNING married another VENNING named Betty VENNING. That is what the evidence supports. And shoddy genealogical work continues to prevail on Ancestry.com. You have just got to love the internet web. It makes 'authorities' of us all. I just wish those who really know something would list their sources more often. So now James VENNING born 1782 is eliminated from consideration and there are just two Altarnun canidates left. James VENNING b/c 1775 is still not preferred as being so close a cousin, but a couple of 'web chat' genealogy sites pitch that coupling as of 2002, and James VENNING b/c 1780, son of George VENNING, a third James VENNING of Altarnun is yet to be checked off. And I suppose that a near area James could have 'moved into' Altarnun. We do have the James VENNING of St Clether and another one mentioned in some family related land dealings as being James VENNING of South Petherwin though the wording of that land deal seems to rule him out.

James Venning (1780-1843)

It would seem that James Venning, Christian baptized 1780, died and was buried in Altarnun, 19 November 1843 at age 63. At that time his residence is listed as Trebant. Catherine Edgcombe [Hender] VENNING seems to have died in 1817 and was buried in Altarnun at age 35. Her residence is simply listed as Altarnun. The 1841 Census for Altarnun does list a James Venning resident at Trebant but his '1841 rounded age' is given as 50. James Venning whose baptism was in 1780 shoud have been listed as 60, but stranger things have happened in the Census records than just getting an age wrong, whether missed, given wrong, 'estimated', poorly written or even mis-read. Since there is no James Venning who would post at that age [50] in 1841 and since James Venning who died in 1843 was listed living at Trebant and properly aged at 63, I must conclude this James Venning on the 1841 Census of Altarnun to be that same James Venning who is looked for as having been christian baptized in 1780.

In the 1841 census, James Venning is listed with a wife Mary and a son Lotan. Mary is aged there at 45, which might give a reason why James himself thought to merely list his age as 50 rather than 60. Lotan is age 25. Both Mary [mother] and Lotan [son], are listed on the 1851 census and both at Trebant, #25 and #26. Mary's age has jumped 18 years in just 10 since 1841, as she is listed as age 63. This goes to support both her and James Vennings under statement of ages in 1841 by some 20 years. Lotan at #26 is age 36 which matches his 1841 age of 25. He is given as of 'Fowey' for his birth parish. Lotan's wife is Martha age 29 of Lewarnick and their two daughters Mary Elizabeth age 6 and Margaret age 4 are given of Altarnun. Two sons are also listed, John age 2 and James 11m, both of Altarnun. There is also a Joseph Facy Venning, nephew age 13 listed as of Altarnun, which should go to further connect this family in with their Venning relatives.

Conclusion

Well for now, I am left to conclued that James Venning and Catherine Edgcomb Venning, near cousins, are who married each other. At least they are not 'first cousins'. I'll still beat the bushes a bit in my search and keep my eyes and mind open but I feel I have eliminated the other two James Vennings of Altarnun as out. And that does only seem to leave cousin James. Stay tuned and check back if you'd like. If any differing information or evidence appears I'd attach it here to this page. If there is such that any may know about please contact me at 'hunterscastle@gmail.com'.

HOLD THE PRESSES - A Fly in the Works

After being down and out if Lotan Venning, age 25 on 1841 Census, was the son of James and Mary Venning as he was in their household; it now appears that Lotan WAS NOT James' son but was the son of George Venning, malster. And Lotan Venning might well be only a visiting 'nephew' and James, George's brother. If so, James is still open to have been married to Catherine Edgcomb Hender until her death in 1817, which Lotan as son would have negated. So from 1817 to 1841, some 24 years, James Venning is free to have married Mary and still to have been husband to Catherine. Not totally back to sqaure one but back to there being two canidates, James Venning cb 1775 the near cousin and James Venning cb 1780. (See Sorting Out the Vennings for details.)