Smiths again

[Phoenix]

This enquiry (from before 1900!) appears to be accurate in all save that the Taunton MP was possibly the son, rather than the father - who was dead by this time. Item 156:

https://archive.org/stream/notesqueriesfor10unkngoog#page/n237/mode/2up/search/canonsleigh

And this is the marriage:

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&_phsrc=sXh4961&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&db=fs1englandmarriages&gss=angs-d&new=1&rank=1&gsfn=frances&gsfn_x=NP&gsln=rowlands&gsln_x=NP&mssng=james&mssns=smith&MSAV=1&uidh=9vh&pcat=BMD_MARRIAGE&fh=0&h=17850746&recoff=&ml_rpos=1&hovR=1

But can anyone find info on Frances' father Henry Rowland? I assume it was a printed source, but I can find nothing online.

[ElizabethHerts]

Have you seen this, Phoenix:

http://landedfamilies.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/188-arscott-of-tetcott-and-dunsland.html

Arscott, Grace (c.1601/2-87). Second but only surviving daughter of Arthur Arscott (c.1581-1662) of Dunsland and his wife Ebbott, daughter of Leonard Yeo of North Petherwin (Cornwall), born about 1601/2. She married, 9 December 1634, William Bickford (d. 1659) of Plympton St Mary (Devon) and had issue:
(1) Mary Bickford (1634-36), baptised at Plympton St Mary, 10 October 1634; died in infancy, 29 March 1635/6;
(2) Arscott Bickford (1636?-93), said to have been born in 1636; married 1st, 27 December 1660, Mary Parker (1641-75) of Boringdon and had issue one son (who died young); married 2nd, 1676, Honor Prideaux (1645-81) of Prideaux Place, Padstow and had issue one daughter; and married 3rd, 8 July 1683 at Padstow (Cornwall), Bridget (1660-1712), second daughter of Edmund Prideaux of Prideaux Place, Padstow and had issue from whom descended the Bickfords of Dunsland, who will form the subject of a future post; buried at Bradford, 19 June 1693; will proved at Exeter, 1694;
(3) Frances Bickford (b. 1637), baptised at Bradford, 29 November 1637; died unmarried before 1659;
(4) Elizabeth Bickford (b. 1639), baptised at Bradford, 26 June 1639; married Henry Rowland; living in 1659.
She inherited the Dunsland estate from her father in 1662. At her death it passed to her only son.
She was buried 13 January 1686/7; her will was proved at Exeter, 1688. Her husband was buried at Bradford, 3 November 1659; his will was proved in the PCC, 5 December 1660.

[ElizabethHerts]

I think the dates are too early for you.

[kiterunner]

Where it says "A Rowland married a Bickford" they must be referring to that marriage in (4) of your post, mustn't they, Elizabeth? But if the bride in that marriage was really born in 1639 and her husband died in 1659, and she had a son, Frances may not have been her daughter, although I would say she was about the right age to be. If only we had full details of the two wills mentioned in (4) it might help. I guess Frances could be the daughter of that Henry Rowland by a previous wife.

Edit - oops, just realised that Henry's will is a PCC one; it's only his wife's which was proved at Exeter, so it should be on ancestry... back in a minute...

[kiterunner]

Oh sorry, I misread it; it's William Bickford's will they're talking about, not Henry Rowland's.

[ElizabethHerts]

Oh sorry, I misread it; it's William Bickford's will they're talking about, not Henry Rowland's.

That confused me too, Kate. In fact, I got totally confused by it! :o

[kiterunner]

So Grace's will, proved at Exeter in 1688, might have information about Henry Rowland, but you would have to get a copy from the Devon Heritage Centre, unless there is a transcription somewhere. Ditto Arscott Bickford's will.

[Phoenix]

Ooh, thank you.

I have Prideaux, Yeo and Bickford in my tree, but none of them nearly related to this lot. So something to look at, rather than studiously ignore!

[Phoenix]

This has got to be Henry's marriage to Elizabeth:

http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=gbprs%2fdev%2f005843534%2f00048&parentid=gbprs%2fdev%2fmar%2f15973%2f1

If Elizabeth was Frances' mother, Frances would have been VERY young when she married in 1677.

[ElizabethHerts]

Don't you just hate it when the marriage entry says ".... and .. his wife married" without giving a surname for the bride?

Well found, Phoenix.

[Phoenix]

But if this is the same Henry, it might explain why it happened:

http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=gbprs%2fdev%2f100121339%2f00510&parentid=gbprs%2fdev2%2fmar%2f29737%2f1&highlights=%22%22

[Phoenix]

This starts to link things together:

From TNA DISCOVERY
Reference: C 6/26/77
Description:
Short title: Marshall v Rowland.
Plaintiffs: Robert Marshall and Joan Marshall his wife.
Defendants: Henry Rowland and Edward Rowland.
Subject: manor of Langford Budville, Somerset, and property in Culmstock, and Cullompton, Devon, in Milverton, Somerset, and in West Langford, Essex.
Document type: bill, answer.
Date: 1662

Reference: C 7/319/52
Description:
Short title: Smyth v Manley.
Plaintiffs: James Smyth
Defendants: John Manley.
Place or subject: estate of John Thomas, Langford Budville, Somerset, Holsworthy, Holcombe Rogus, Devon etc.
Document type: bill and answer
Date: 1711
Held by: The National Archives, Kew

It starts to explain why the James who married Frances (father of the above) came to have land in Somerset.