Keam: St Mewan, Lanivet, & Luxulyan, Cornwall

Research Note by Wesley Johnston, begun 10 Sep 2014, last updated 7 Nov 2014

Overview

The parish of St Mewan appears to be the earliest documented origin of the Keam families that appear in the records there, at Lanivet, and at Luxulyan. There were two families that have connections to all three locations: Humphrey Keam (born c 1673 first married Agnes Stanton at St Mewan 5 Sep 1695) and Thomas Keam (born c 1728 married Mary Prynn at Lanivet 1751).

This research note brings into one place the information on these two families, as well as on how far back the Keam family can be found in the St Mewan records.

Earliest Keam Entries in Parish Registers

The following is from the Cornwall Family History Society research database and the Cornwall Online Parish Clerks database. There is clearly a chronological progression from St Mewan to Lanivet to Luxulyan. When all of Cornwall is considered, St Austell-St Ewe-St Mewan and St Gluvias-Constantine have the earliest records.

Luxulyan

Earliest Known Keam Baptism - 1722 Jun 19 - John Keam, son of Humphry and Elizabeth (there is a Grace KAM 13 Nov 1655 to Phillip and Jane)

Earliest Known Keam Marriage - 1717 Oct 9 - Humphry Keam and Agnes Rosevear (next is 1720 Oct 1 - Humphry Keam and Elizabeth Davy) (earliest bride 1747 Dec 24 Frances Keem and Melchisadeck Watts)

Earliest Known Keam Burial - 1729 Nov 28 - John Keam

Lanivet

Earliest Known Keam Baptism - 1700 Oct 12 - Humphry, son of Humphry and Agnes

Earliest Known Keam Marriage - 1751 Jun 20 - Thomas Keame and Mary Prynn (earliest bride 1756 Nov 20 Joan Keame and John Leavers)

Earliest Known Keam Burial - 1716 Apr 8 - Agnes Kean (CFHS DB has no Lanivet burials before 1813; this if from Cornwall OPC)

St Mewan

Earliest Known Keam Baptism - 1627 Jun 28 - Marye CAME, daughter of John (next is 1688 Feb 2 Florence, first of 5 children of Richard)

Earliest Known Keam Marriage - 1681 May 17 - Grace Ceame and Thomas John (earliest Keam groom 1685 Sep 5 - Humphery CAIME and Agnes Stanton; next 1688 Apr 17 Richard Ceame and Mary Saunders) (next bride 1710 Dec 30 Florence CAME and Nicholas Young)

Earliest Known Keam Burial - 1699 Feb 20 - Rachell Ceam (next 1720 Dec 14 - Mary, daughter of Richard Keam) (CFHS DB has no St Mewan burials before 1813; these are from Cornwall OPC)

All that I have been able to find for the 1607-1692 records are modern (1934) transcripts of the Bishop's transcripts of the original records. Each transcription from one handwritten entry to another introduces more errors.

For a marriage example of a possible corruption of a Keam name, there was a 24 Jan 1670/1 marriage recorded in the transcript of the transcript as Robert BAME and Winnifrey HANCOCK. There is a very real possiblity that BAME was acutally written as KAME in the original record, but we will never know. (The image of this is at https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-22657-11378-72 - note also the 1655 Ralph LINE on that page which might also be a corruption of the original that may have been some variant of Keam.)

For a baptismal example of a possible corruption of a Keam name, there was a 23 Jan 1621/2 "CLEARE, Grisell d of Humfrey" that may have been originally written as CEAME. (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-22657-11656-79) And on the next page, there are a 17 Nov 1622 Anthony CANN that may have been CAME and a 26 May 1636 Richard HAYNE who may have been KAYME.

Clearly, some of these could be correct, but with transcripts of transcripts, you never really know when the originals cannot be compared to the transcripts.

All Cornwall

Earliest Known Keam Baptism - 1611 25 Apr Grace Came at Constantine to Richard Bussocack and Grace Came (next is from OPC only: 1813-Feb 6 - Jane CAME, daughter of John -- next are 1627 Jun 28 - St Mewan - Marye CAME, daughter of John and then multiple children of Nicholas and Elizabeth Ca(i)me(s) at St Ewe)

Earliest Known Keam Marriage - 1631 Sep 1 at Kenwyn Florence Keame and Thomas Gearans (next bride is 1668 Nov 9 at Sheviock Judith CAME and Thomas Truscot - next is 1672 Apr 17 at St Gluvias Isabella Keames and Richard Laury - next is 1673 Dec 30 at St Austell Matlilda Came and Richard Freeman) (earliest groom is 1634 Jan 19 at St Ewe Nicholes Cames and Elizabeth Carkeete - next groom is 1695 Sep 5 at St Mewan Humphrey Caime and Agnest Stanton)

Earliest Known Keam Burial - 1604 Apr 16 - St Austell - Johes Came, son of Johis Came (next is 1628 Apr 10 at St Gluvias Auderie Keames, daughter of Robert - next is 1636 Jun 30 at St Gluvias Margery Keame, daughter of Robart and Fely) (all are from Cornwall OPC and are not in CFHS DB)

Humphrey Keam (c 1673 ???? - bef 15 Sep 1736 Luxulyan)

The earlier of the two Keams connected to all three places (St Mewan, Lanivet and Luxulyan) was Humphry/Humphrey Keam. His earliest records found thus far is his marriage at St Mewan with Agnes Stanton 5 Sep 1695). So he was probably born about 1673, though no baptismal record has been found for him. (The St Mewan baptismal registers only go back to 1682.) Nor has a baptism for Agnes been found.

The next record of the couple is in 1700 at Lanivet:

1700 Oct 12, baptism of their son Humphry at Lanivet

They baptized children at Lanivet in 1704 (Anne), 1705 (William) and 1708 (Robert). The last record at Lanivet is the burial of Agnes 8 Apr 1716.

Humphrey then married at Luxulyan with Agnes Rosevear 9 Oct 1717, the first Keam record at Luxulyan. They apparently had no children, and this second Agnes apparently died, since Humphrey remarried again at Luxulyan 1 Oct 1720 with Elizabeth Davy, by whom he had children from 1722 to 1738 (modern year, 1737 in old style year). He was buried at Luxulyan 15 Sep 1736, if that Humphry Keam burial is him, which seems most likley.

I am one of Humphrey's descendants, through his son Robert from his first marriage.

Richard Keam at St Mewan (born c 1667)

Richard Keam (Ceame) may have been an older brother of Humphrey (more on this below), which would explain why Richard stayed at St Mewan and Humphrey moved away (i.e. primogeniture - the inheritance by the oldest son). Richard was born about 1667 and married Mary Saunders 17 Apr 1688 at St Mewan. All of their known children were born at St Mewan.

Richard's descendants include Thomas Varker Keam, after whom Keams Canyon in Arizona is named and who provided the extensive collection of Navajo items at the Royal Cornwall Museum in Truro. (See http://www.westbriton.co.uk/Truro-man-wed-Navajo-died-city/story-21262053-detail/story.html)

Thomas Keam (born c 1728)

As of this time, I cannot find who this Thomas' parents were. So I am carrying him as unattached in my database. He married at Lanivet 20 Jun 1751 with Mary Prynn, who was baptized at Lanivet in 1730. I have a separate research note about the two Thomas Keams both born about 1730 and married 1751 and both winding up living in St Mewan. So I will not include all the details on him here. This unattached Thomas was a mason. He and his wife legally settled in St Mewan in 1759, as documented in a St Mewan settlement paper. They had four known children, born 1752 to 1759. All were baptized at Luxulyan, including the 1759 Richard who was probably born at St Mewan.

Possible Father of Richard and Humphrey Keam

The records of the baptisms of Richard and Humphrey Keam, if they ever existed, have yet to be found. But the evidence suggests that they may have been brothers.

First, they were both born about the same time (1667 and 1673), probably at St Mewan. The earliest records that we have for both of them are their marriages at St Mewan in 1688 and 1695, which is the evidence for their birth at St Mewan and for their birth at the same place.

Second, there are no other Keams in the St Mewan baptisms from 1688 to 1719 than those with Richard as their father. So clearly Humphrey had moved away to Lanivet where his first recorded child was baptized in 1700. This conforms with the practice of primogeniture, in which the oldest son inherited the family home, so that the younger sons moved elsewhere after they married.

Third, the fact that there are no other baptisms at St Mewan than those of Richard's children indicates the likelihood that there was only one Keam family at St Mewan. This indicates -- as does the apparent reality of primogeniture -- the likelihood that Richard and Humphrey were brothers and not cousins. The lone 28 Jun 1627 St Mewan baptism of Marye Came shows that there was a Keam family at St Mewan that early, but there are no other baptisms until 1688.

The family may have lived elsewhere where no records have been found. There are no candidate marriages in the surviving transcripts of transcripts of the original St Mewan records (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-22657-11378-72), so that the possible parents of Richard and Humphrey may have married elsewhere and Richard and Humphrey born elsewhere. But no records of their baptisms have yet been found in Cornwall. The St Mewan transcripts of transcripts certainly have potential errors, but the one thing that is certain is that there were no possible Richards or Humphreys baptized in the period in St Mewan, which definitely leads to the conclusion that they were baptized elsewhere. So it does look as if they were born elsewhere and the family later moved to St Mewan where Richard and Humphrey both married.

Certainly, it would be nice to find documentary proof of this relationship. But the reality is that the parish registers at St Mewan simply do not go back far enough to include the years of their births. While there is always hope that some other record might someday be found that can give definitive proof of the relationship, the evidence for them being brothers is strong enough to support a "possible" father for them.

This term, "possible", clearly shows that there is uncertainty and no proof. But the reality is that there probably never will be any certainty or any proof. And the probable relationship is important and should not be lost by carrying Richard and Humphrey as unconnected. Carrying them unconnected, as a default, in this case goes against all the evidence that we are ever likely to have. So, in a situation that will probably forever remain unprovable, I am going with the weight of the evidence and carrying Richard and Humphrey as possible brothers with a possible father.

I am certainly open to revising this conclusion, if and when solid evidence to the contrary is found. But the evidence for them being brothers is simply too strong to refuse to accept, in a futile desire for absolute proof that probably no longer exists.