Yes my thoughts exactly regarding the name Elizabeth. But the family does not exude confidence with Edmund the suggested father missing in this generation and Thomas the suggested father missing in the next generation. Also the trouble with Edmund is that there is no direct link to a Vincent so why two attempts as that as a name. What are the chances that there is a group of data missing here?
I am just putting my final touches to the CRAZE study I have been doing and then I will take a closer look at the UREN connections, particularly at Polpeor.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 8, 2019 12:51:37 GMT -5
Also the trouble with Edmund is that there is no direct link to a Vincent so why two attempts as that as a name.
Based on my own database entries this comment is far from correct. Edmund Uren (1719-) husband of Elizabeth Mollard and potential father of the Thomas in question was the grandson of Vincent Uren and Honor Trevorrow. He also had a brother Vincent and a son Vincent who was the next elder brother to Thomas.
This does not solve the problem but it is worth noting nonetheless.
Yes agreed wholeheartedly - that is how I have them as well.. however I did not quite phrase it as I meant it... for Thomas, as names for his children, he did not have Vincent as a father or grandfather - that was my meaning by a direct link. But he had Edmund as both of those and that name does not appear. Whilst anything is possible the situation is unusual.
CT the whole thing is unusual.. if we go back to Richard of 1806, the names of the children follow his wife's side... but seemingly not his... three male names.. William (twice), his father in law Christopher Treefellas, and his own name Richard. I think I am going to start collecting data and look at naming patterns used by siblings etc and see if a pattern appears.
Last Edit: Oct 8, 2019 14:21:04 GMT -5 by Glazin2018
According to what I have from years ago, Edmund Uren husband of Elizabeth Mollard and potential father of the Thomas in question had the following siblings: Margaret, Jane, Mary, Elizabeth, Christian, 2 x Vincent, George, Eleanor, Esther & Richard. A lot of the 1st names of interest.
I have notes from Zella's wonderful Rootsweb entries: Two Thomas Urens paid rates in the parish: Thomas Uren "Lelant Town," and Thomas Uren "Pulpear." Thomas Uren "Pulpear" appeared next to his mother Christian in 1757, and paid the rate on her property after her death. This Thomas disappears in 1784-5 and is replaced by "Pellow and Glasson" his sons-in-law.
and then some deeds... 29 Feb. 1776
Assignment of 99 yr. lease; rent 1/- if demanded. (1) Thos. Uren of Lelant, yeo., to (2) Jn. Glasson of Lelant, blacksmith, his son-in-law. (He of course being JG 1749 spouse of Christian Uren, daughter of Thomas Uren 1721 above mentioned as brother of Edmund Uren 1719). Consideration: natural love and affection for (2) and his w. Christian. Ancient dwelling-house and gdn. late in occ. of Edm. Uren then of his wid. Christian, now of Jn. Glasson, being in Pulpeor tenement in Lelant called the Coome.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 8, 2019 16:12:37 GMT -5
Yes, it is intriguing in both cases. In the case of Thomas it could be argued that there is too much reliance on the age as recorded when he was buried. I mention this because if we ignore that particular piece of information then there is another Thomas who 'might' be considered. This second Thomas was baptized in 1755 (i.e. six years older) to Thomas Uren and Joan Ninnes. The elder Thomas in this case was the son of Edmund and Christian (Bennatts) Uren so still in the same general family group. The problem here though is that in this case the name 'Joan' does not appear among the daughters of Thomas and Catherine Uren! The only part of the initial problem this might solve is that it alleviates the issue of there being no son named Edmund for Thomas and Catherine by separating the direct line by a generation.
I think the common sense solution at the moment is to tentatively pencil in Thomas Uren (husband of Catherine Laity) as the 1761 son of Edmund and then work around the problem. Investigating the family groups of siblings as you suggest is probably a good way to start.
It is unfortunate that there does not appear to be a Will for any Edmund Uren directly linked to this problem.
Sue - this is also good input. It does not solve the immediate problem of the identity of Thomas Uren but it does fairly neatly confirm other connections in the previous two generations.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 10, 2019 18:33:33 GMT -5
What would you think is a fair age range to assume for Thomas then?
How long is a piece of string?
In reality we could 'assume' Thomas might have been as early as about 1730 or as late as about 1773 but then we do have that tiny matter of his age being recorded when he was buried. Now we know of course that piece of information might not be totally accurate but as a starting point it would seem to restrict our options somewhat - even when applying to guestimates.
I think we have to work from 'known' information and see if 'facts' can be linked with other 'facts'.
If we were to play around with Thomas' age a little then there is certainly one more candidate that could be considered - Thomas Son of William and Joan Uren baptized at Lelant in 1767. William and Joan married in 1764 and I have found only two children so far - Thomas 1767 and Mary 1770 - so both could have been born a little earlier. But that does not help the cause either because Thomas and Catherine had no daughter named Joan or Mary and although they did have a son named William he was preceded by sons Thomas, Vincent (x2) and George. To me that would seem to rule him out.
Using %r%n as a wildcard search option on the OPC database I have searched for other possibilities form 1755-1770. Aside from those we have already discussed I found:-
1. Thomas son of Jane Uran/Urion baptized 1760 Redruth 2. Thomas son of Thomas Uren baptized 1766 Ludgvan 3. Thomas son of George and Mary baptized 1768 Gwinear 4. Thomas son of Richard baptized 1768 Camborne
Of these four the illegitimate son of Jane at Redruth can probably be ruled out. I think the son of Richard at Camborne might also be dismissed given Thomas and Catherine used Thomas, Vincent, George and William as names for their sons before naming a Richard. Based on the age at burial 1768 is also getting a little late and this argument also applies to the son of George and Mary in 1768 at Gwinear. Thomas and Catherine did name a son George but he was probably named for Catherine's father George Laity.
That leaves the 1766 son of Thomas at Ludgvan but I think he too can be eliminated as he is most likely the man who married Jennifer Rapson at Ludgvan in 1763.
And now on a search for possible burials I think I can eliminated one of those previously under discussion. There is a burial at Lelant in 1764 for 'Thomas son of Thomas Uren' and it seems beyond doubt that this must be the son of Thomas Uren and Joan Ninnes baptized at Lelant in 1755.
Unless there is another Thomas for whom no baptism was recorded or has been found then all evidence still points back to the son of Edmund and Elizabeth.
I do not really have much to add as I have only just started to put my data together.
CFHS have a further baptism at Lelant for Thomas, son of John & Joan, bap 10th March 1765.
One thing that I have started to notice is that a number of the UREN family do not seem to follow any sort of naming protocol. I do not want to get too carried away yet because I am in the early stages of data collection. But the sons of Edmund and Christian Bennatts do not seem to have named their sons after Edmund. Lots of work to do yet but my enquiry was really just to get a feel for an acceptable error in the true age due to the person themself not knowing for sure while they were yet alive or the relatives of that person once deceased.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 11, 2019 5:25:09 GMT -5
I somehow missed that 1765 baptism earlier but it is certainly in the register. But as with some of the others, even though naming convention seems to be 'out the window' a little with these Urens, the fact that Thomas and Catherine never named a John or a Joan points to the likelihood this one can also be discounted. Thomas and Catherine at least did name children after themselves and certainly after Catherine's parents.
I have not done much work on the Urens for several years but I will need to return to them at some stage given the Trewhella connections.
Thanks, Lannanta for reminding me to look deeper into the naming patterns. I have a number of "rebel" ancestors who name children after themselves first and then go traditional. I am still looking into my Bartle/Hockyn link (with DNA matches) and the names back it up more that I realized. Still not proven but looking good.
I have some Uren and Lelant links and am enjoying this thread.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 19, 2019 14:54:12 GMT -5
Just a quick question.. the OPC database seems to be incomplete with respect to Lelant. Would you agree with that?
Yes, I would certainly agree with that …. but perhaps with some qualifications. For example, outside of the scattered Bishops Transcripts there is very little available at all prior to 1716. There are a few baptisms for 1669 and then from 1684 through 1724 in the volume containing marriages from 1754-1782 but I am not sure that those baptisms have been transcribed. The register for 1811-1812 I believe is also missing or, at the very least, not available outside the CRO although I think those records can be found in the Bishops Transcripts through FamilySearch.
If there is anything in particular that you are looking for the let me know as I have copies of all the available records apart from post-1901 baptisms.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 20, 2019 10:30:32 GMT -5
As requested herewith the children of John and Elizabeth Uren. But be aware that the details provided here are as they were entered into the database in 2012/13. I have not yet had a chance to cross-check with original registers etc.
Margaret Penberthy Uren bp. 6th April 1821 St Ives Elizabeth Uren bp. 7th September 1822 Lelant John Uren bp. 8th February 1824 Lelant and buried 28th March 1825 Lelant John Uren bp. 5th June 1825 Lelant married Amelia Trembath 24th October 1844 Ludgvan Thomas Uren bp. 19th November 1826 Lelant William Uren bp. 19th October 1828 Towednack Richard Uren bp. 18th April 1830 Lelant married Ann Quick 8th May 1854 Towednack Catherine Jane Uren bp. 11th July 1834 St Ives Hannah Uren bp. 4th February 1838 St Ives
I see that I have quoted the relevant Parish Registers in my database as sources for each event so there should be no issues with the data or the family group itself.