|
Post by tenpoundpom on Nov 25, 2013 3:40:48 GMT -5
Does that mean I have to put my cattle prod away now? That does seem rather conclusive evidence identifying Kitty's husband as the culprit in the case of Edith Matthews. But I don't know that we should then take it to mean he was also responsible for the two later daughters of Dorcas Matthews. Well done. CT Cattle prod! I thought it was more like a blow torch. . I now know there is a higher standard of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt") that would send a man to the electric chair! "Beyond any doubt" is the CT standard. Although this standard cannot always be met, its the one to strive for! For the time being, the other Dorcas Matthews daughters Caroline and Caroline Uren will have to fend for themselves! I'm heading up to Lancashire ( well virtually anyway) to look further at my wife's family. With such common names such as Webster, Spencer & Taylor, and coming from Catholic families, I'm sure it will be quite a challenge!
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 25, 2013 4:10:19 GMT -5
I have learned over the years that if there is the slightest hint or reason that something does not look right or may not be right then there is a very good chance that it is just that .... not right! In the case of William Uren there was enough evidence (or lack of) to cause me to question what appeared to be the 'obvious outcome' so I began thinking of every possibility I could that might explain the known 'facts'. Eliminating each possibility in turn is the only way to get at the truth and as it turns out you were right. It is better to go the extra yard and be sure than it is to find out in a potentially embarrassing manner some time later down the track. If I think there is reason to question something then I will dig and prod and worry at it until I find the answer. Very true - sometimes it becomes impossible to know for absolute certainty but by working around the problem it is often possible to arrive at a conclusion that is 'probably' right. To work at a problem, even with minimal information' and arrive at a conclusion that is a 'best fit' is much better than simply accepting what is available and saying that A was the son of C because those are the only records available. CT
|
|
grose
Noweth
Enter your message here...
Posts: 28
|
Post by grose on Aug 1, 2023 11:01:15 GMT -5
I have found a death register of William Uren having died 18 June 1916 at age 79 at Brixton cemetery in Johannesburg. Ernest and Annie ( Williams daughter) Grose lived on ErnestPenn Groses farm in Boksburg where my father was born
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Aug 1, 2023 12:29:59 GMT -5
Hmmm, that 'could' be him but as this William's age was recorded as 79 it projects his birth to around 1837 which gives me cause for doubt. From his marriage record and the UK Census as well as the GRO Birth Index we know that William Uren, husband of Kitty Trewhella, was born in 1841 to Richard Uren and Phillis Trewhella (his birth was registered in the June Qtr of 1841). I have made plenty of comments in this forum regarding ages at death and burial so I am well aware that the variation may be due to incorrect information provided at the time of death. But as there is a 4 year difference here and as there is, as yet, no further corroborating evidence available regarding the identity of William Uren in 1916 I will be reserving judgement. Hopefully further information will surface to help with correct identification. CT
|
|