Richard, son of Nicholas Grose - 17 Feb 1676 Luxulyan baptism
Research Note by Wesley Johnston
Begun July 2011 - last updated 23 Aug 2017
Overview: The Problem
The Luxulyan baptisms show Richard, son of Nicholas GROASE, baptized 17 Feb 1676 (barely legible blurry image):
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11664-9064-93
There are a number of trees on Ancestry that show Richard as the son of Nicholas GROOSE (bap 19 Jun 1643-bur 9 Oct 1694) and Mary Bridgeman (abt 1643 - bur 2 Nov 1733) who married at Luxulyan 30 Nov 1672.
And there was indeed a Nicholas GROSE baptized at Luxulyan, son of George and Agnes GROSE, 19 Nov 1643. The baptism of this Nicholas should be on this page:
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11664-8921-15
However, even with attempts to digitally enhance the image, I cannot tell for certain which is his baptism, which is probably in the very faint print at the bottom of the left page. The record is indexed both in the CFHS DB and FamilySearch (indexing project (batch) number: C02026-3; system origin: England-ODM; source film number: 916948), which show the surname as GROOSE, parents Goerge and Agnes, and date 19 Nov 1643.
However, there was also a Nicholas GROSE baptized at Luxulyan, son of Benedick and Charety GROOSE, either 25 or 26 Apr 1640. His much more legible baptism is on the prior image at:
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11664-16178-2
(Inedexd by CFHS DB and FamilySearch [indexing project (batch) number: P02026-1; system origin: England-ODM; source film number: 897356; FamilySearch indexing project (batch) number: C02026-3; system origin: England-ODM; source film number: 916948] as either 25 or 26 April, but the day is very difficult to decipher.
The Cornwall Family History Society research database records four Nicholas GROOSE burials at Luxulyan in a very short time:
GROOSE, Nicholas (Junior) - 7 May 1640 [image: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11664-10533-17]
GROOSE, Nicholas - 13 Sep 1640 [image: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11664-10533-17]
GROOSE, Nicholas - 24 Dec 1643 [image: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-267-11664-14098-11]
GROOSE, Nicholas - 13 Jan 1654
So which Nicholas GROSE was really the father of Richard?
Based on the index information alone, any of the last three burials could have been the 1640 Nicholas, and either of rhe last two could have been the 1643 Nicholas. But fortunately, we now have the images of the records, and the image of the 13 Sep 1640 burial shows that the full text of the entry reads "Nicholas sonne of Benedick Groose Buried the 15th of Sep" {I read it as 15th, alhtough the indexer read it as 13th.]
FamilySearch (indexing project (batch) number: C02026-3; system origin: England-ODM; source film number: 916948) did showthe date of death of 13 Sep 1640 as being the 1640-born Nicholas.
Thus the only one of the two who could have been the husband of Mary and father of Richard was the 1643 son of George and Agnes.
Might there have been another Nicholas GROSE who was the father?
The CFHS DB shows a Nicholas GROOSE, son of Ambros and Jane, who was baptized at Luxulyan 6 Jan 1655. This Nicholas would have been 17 years old at the time of the 30 Nov 1672 marriage of Nicholas and Mary and would have been 21 at the time of the 17 Feb 1676 baptism of Richard.
I have thus far found no burial record that is definitely for this Nicholas nor for the 1643 Nicholas. FamilySearch has no burials for the period; so CFHS DB is the only source. And they have only the four burials above and no other Nic* Gro* burials until the 9 Oct 1694 burial that is presumably the father of Richard. After that, other than a 1718 infant, there is no Nic* Gro* burial at Luxulyan until 1815.
The Bottom Line
My 2011 note had no benefit of being able to view the images, which are now (2013) available. My conclusions however are not changed by the images, since the index information had ruled out the 1640 Nicholas.
The bottom line right now is that:
1 - We can rule out the 1640 Nicholas.
2 - But the father of Richard may have been either the 1643 or the 1655 Nicholas.
3 - The 1643 Nicholas seems more likely since he would have been 29 at the 1672 marriage, while the 1655 Nicholas would have been only 17.
But based only on the church records, I cannot definitively say which of the two was the Nicholas who fathered Richard.
UPDATE: 23 Aug 2017
Thanks to cousin Dee Edwards in Lostwithiel and late cousin Bill Grose's book "The Grose Family in Cornwall, 1538 - 2006", we know that the 1655 Nicholas (son of Ambrose) died young and that the 1643 Nicholas and all of his surviving children, including Richard, are named in the 1687 will of Nicholas' father George Grose. Thus my original conclusion in 2011 is correct.