RootsChat.Com

I have Nancy Ann Monkhouse 1815-1883.

She was born and died at Kendal, but in 1835 married in Preston Patrick to Thomas Oldcorn (sometimes spelt Oldcorne).

Although Thomas was from Preston Patrick his Grandfather had come from Hesket-in-the-Forest. The Oldcorne’s had lived in Hesket-in-the-Forest since at least the 1600’s.

Thomas and Nancy clearly moved around the area judging from a variety of birthplaces for their children, but the never went far.

Hutton and Hesket are adjoining Parishes. In addition I gather that due to the family being Catholic and the lack of local Catholic Church in the area at times resulted in Catholic families traveling to Kendal to use the Catholic Church. This can produce records of Christening, marriage and burial in away from the actual village of residence.

The chances are Nancy and Sarah Monkhouse was related somehow given the coincidences. However I don’t have any details on Nancy’s family. If you find any please let me know.

Continued

We have traced our family by documentary evidence back to John Oldcorne 1640-1722. He lived in Hesket-in-the-Forest, Cumberland. There the document trail goes cold. Hence the need to use DNA to link us back to the Oldcorne family who had lived in York until about 30 years before.

According to our family oral traditions, our family was relocated there from York with the assistance of a Catholic nobleman. There is some suspicion this was the Duke of Norfolk.

The story tells that we went into hiding for both our own protection from arrest and torture, but also to protect other Catholics. To put it simply, we knew too much.

The story of the Gunpowder plot as it is commonly known today is based upon two sources. These are the version of the English State and the version of the Jesuits. At the time these two were locked in a battle for control of England. The gunpowder plot was just one of a number of attempts to replace Protestant political control of England with Catholic. Both versions were political spin of their day. Neither were the full story, nor unbiased.

The Jesuit version was that they had nothing to do with the Gunpowder plot. It had been conceived and implemented by a few Catholic laymen without Jesuit approval or knowledge.

The English State version was that the Jesuits had been responsible for the actions of the laymen. They had inspired, approved and incited the plot.
In the end all the State could prove in Court was that the senior Jesuit in England had been complicit. His name was Henry Garnet and in January 1606 he was captured hiding in a Priest’s hole with Edward Oldcorne.

Knowing of impending treason and failing to reveal it was in itself treason. He was hanged, drawn and quartered for it.

At the time it was illegal to be ordained overseas and return to England. The Jesuits were here illegally. As such they had to live covertly under assumed names, hiding from searches and communicating with their superiors abroad in coded messages. These went either by courier who was a seaman visiting England, or they were sent using the diplomatic pouch of one of Catholic Ambassadors to the English Court.

However, at some point the realised their messages were being intercepted. Some of their captured messages still exist within the National Archives.

According to family tradition they turned this to their advantage. They continued sending messages via the compromised route, but these contained only innocuous reports or disinformation.

Meanwhile they established a new secure route using carrier pigeons and much stronger encryption.  This had to be based somewhere secure. The most secure place was Hinlip, which was where Edward Oldcorne was based.

Edward should have handled the pigeons and encryption personally, but he didn’t. His nephew Robert was living with him under an assumed name. Only the owners of Hinlip and Edward knew of the connection. Edward entrusted Robert with the job.

Acting as cypher clerk, Robert read all the traffic and knew the true extent of Jesuit involvement. In the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot the Jesuits withdrew everyone in the know who had survived from danger of capture in England.

Robert had been arrested in April 1606 handing over the cypher equipment to a Jesuit lay brother called ‘Little Richard’ Fulwood. Robert maintained his alias and his significance wasn’t realised. They both survived the experience, Little Richard went into exile.

Robert returned to his life, and is listed as the father of some children in the baptism records at York. Until at some point it was realised how much he knew. At this point the family disappears from York, presumably because they had gone into hiding in Hesket.

We haven’t been able to trace the record of their capture. If anyone has any luck finding the records of this please let me know.

Garnet had hidden the encryption equipment where the sun doesn’t shine while in the Priest hole. He stashed it in the toilet when they came out. They called it the ‘little flute’. I’ve never even seen a picture of one and would be interested if anyone knows about them.

Garnet wrote several letters from the Tower of London where he was imprisoned. The early ones provide the hints of where he had hidden it. The last letter refers the arrest of Richard and Robert with a cipher.
The letters were supposed to be smuggled out by a bribed gaoler. In fact the gaoler was acting on official instructions hoping that Garnet would incriminate himself in the letters. The letters were intercepted before being passed on.

Garnet included a section in invisible ink. This didn’t incriminate him either. Significantly the clues to the location are not in invisible ink, but in subtle hints in plain sight; but only if you shared the knowledge how to read them.

The gaoler insisted he be allowed to read the letter. Had Garnet actually trusted the gaoler then they would have been explicit instructions written in invisible ink. That he didn’t demonstrates he was aware the authorities knew about his use of invisible ink and were going to see the letter.

I don’t have it, nor will I ever have it. As literally part of the family, it’s something sensitive and to be treated with respect.

It’s also the relic of a Saint and therefore of great significance to the Church. They have looked after it down the centuries and it’s only right they continue to do so. On rare occasions the Church permits investigation of relics.

So now the family is trying to engage in some delicate negotiations to obtain the necessary permission.

If this comes to anything then I’ll post up. However we would prefer not to compromise negotiations by discussing the matter in public. Naturally there will always be some people whose belief leads them to consider such things shouldn’t be permitted. Negotiations would be easier without generating pressure to refuse permission.

Would you please therefore refrain from speculating upon which Saint, etc.

The full doc for context.

This is a really strange question about DNA testing and I wasn’t sure which area to post it in, but since it’s kind of about an artefact….

In fact this has to be a contender for the weirdest post on here; ever.

I need some advice from someone with knowledge of DNA testing an artefact.

Suppose you had piece of soft body tissue that was dried and never buried. It’s been sealed in an airtight transparent case for centuries, probably since shortly after death. It’s shrived and has turned black.

The person died 400 years ago, and was male. He had the same surname as my family. They came from the same geographic area and there are other pointers to a family connection.

We know his name and that of both his parents, but have so far failed to trace his other relatives. We do know that the deceased old had no children. The suspicion is that we are descended from either a brother or male cousin of this 400 year old.

The deceased was born about 1560, so if we are descended from a sibling then the relationship is mid 1500’s, if it’s from a cousin then we’re looking even earlier.

What would be the chance of obtaining a viable DNA sample from a 400 year old dried sample of soft tissue?

Would a DNA test be able to confirm or refute any form of relationship between living members of the family and the 400 year old who was not a direct ancestor?

I gather there are several types of DNA test. Which type would we need?