I don’t understand Moore’s quoted passage re Cavendish in Kirk Michael. Perhaps the original registers are different but in the Official Copy of the Kirk Michael registers, the first Corjeage (various spellings) baptism is in 1611, the first Cavendish is 1817, Jane d/o Wm Quayle & Margt Cavendish. Their previous child, in 1815, was d/o Wm Quayle & Margt Corjeage. After Joseph Brown became vicar in 1818 there were a couple of Cavendish baptisms and no Corjeage, after that the names seemed to be used interchangeably – the same people being recorded as either Cavendish or Corjeage in subsequent entries. After 1830 all baptisms are Corjeage apart from one or two.

The first Corjeage marriage is in 1666/7 , the first Cavendish is in 1809, nearly all entries again being Corjeage. In 1811 it looks like vicar Thomas Harrison has prepared the register entry with the name ‘Thomas Cavendish, bachelor’ who then signed his own name ‘Thomas Corjeage’! Two years later he remarried as Corjeage. In 1833 the groom is named as ’John Corjeage or Cavendish’.

The first of the burials is Corjeage in 1611, and only that name (not Cavendish) appears until 1837 when there is 1 Cavendish and all the rest Corjeage.

I get the impression that Cavendish in Kirk Michael was the idea of the recording minister rather than a separate family. I’m ashamed to admit I haven’t really got into the Liber Vastarum yet, but I wonder where this Cavendish family came from that ‘settled in Kirk Michael’ and if they are in fact named Cavendish before 1611.

If it’s of interest, my family always pronounced Corjeage as ‘C’jegg’.