I can't believe I missed that ..... Ann UREN is indeed living in St.Ives in 1841 with Samuel and Kitty (Catherine BERRIMAN) UREN.
I would agree with you all that Ann is probably Samuel's Grandmother.
I also agree that William Hosking UREN is a possible clue so will keep that in mind.
Perhaps there are further clues in the families of John and Elizabeth's children? Unfortunately I only have details of Samuel and Catherine UREN's family and have not yet found the marriages of Samuel's siblings. Lots more work to do I think.
Clutching at IGI straws here. But assuming we are looking for a Thomas UREN married to an Ann born about 1759 there is only one and it is over in Gwinear. A Thomas UREN to Ann THOMAS on 06 APR 1799. There was an Ann THOMAS bap 22 JUL 1759 in Ludgvan to a Samson THOMAS. Unfortunately for this far-fetched theory to work she would have to be the only Ann THOMAS and of course she isn't, in fact there is one born in Gwinear.
Oh well, I need some sleep.
I am wondering if our Ann didn't use her middle name just to throw us off. It is so tantalizing that she hung around long enough to be counted on the census and just as aggravating that her husband didn't hang around long enough.
Post by davidkingmartin on Aug 4, 2008 11:19:30 GMT -5
On the subject of UREN: I am seeking info. on Grace Uren 1737-1816, Ludgvan/Towednack area, married to Richard Martin. Her father may be: Arthur b.1715, wife Grace. Arthur`s parents may be: James Uren and Elizabeth Bryan. Children of Grace/Richard incl.Christopher bZennor?1764, d.1824 Ludgvan, wife Mary Johns b.30 July 1766 Ludgvan, and James Martin 1774-1831, my ggggfather, wife Charity Carbus (..bis) 1776-1841.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Feb 6, 2010 5:01:55 GMT -5
Well - I have spent more than half the day on this and still getting nowhere rapidly.
About all I can offer is some more observations.
Elizabeth May was baptised in 1783 so her age was obviously misleading in the 1851 Census.
I think it likely that John Uren was born before this but exactly when still eludes me.
The Ann Uren with Samuel and his family in 1841 was probably born between 1756 and 1760 - allowing for her age being rounded down to 80.
She may have been an aunt (or great-aunt) to Samuel rather than his grandmother.
The name William Hosking may or may not be directly relevant. Rather than reflecting the name maiden name of his grandmother he may instead have been named for someone not directly related to John Uren.
There were, however, two earlier Uren marriages to Hosking brides.
In 1738 at Ludgvan James Uren married Sarah Hosking. In 1745 at Lelant Thomas Uren married Margaret Hosking.
That does not help a great deal but it is where I am at just now.
OK, I believe I have solved which John UREN with a little help from a fellow researcher.
The key to unlocking this puzzle was William Hosking UREN bap 19 NOV 1804 Ludgvan.
I have long felt that the middle name Hosking was the clue but was going about it wrong.
The answer is a step father of John UREN.
The correct John was bap. 05 Apr 1772 at Ludgvan to Thomas UREN and Mary CARBESS. Thomas UREN was buried 10 May 1774 at Ludgvan and his widow Mary remarried to a John HOSKING on 05 Jun 1775. So the only father that John UREN knew was John HOSKING and why I believe he named his son William Hosking UREN.
Furthermore I believe John UREN was buried 12 Jun 1830 at St. Ives after eliminating a few other possible candidates.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 22, 2021 1:35:57 GMT -5
I am not totally comfortable with that conclusion and certainly not inclined to put the 'problem solved' stamp on it just yet. If the stepfather was 'John Hosking' then it does not make sense that the first child would be named WILLIAM Hosking Uren.
And after checking the relevent marriages (i.e. Thomas Uren to Mary Carbess and John Hoskin to Mary Uren widow) I have further reason to suggest caution about this conclusion.
When Mary Carbess married in 1769 she was unable to sign her own name yet the widowed Mary Uren who married John Hoskin could do so!
Now, it is possible that Mary learned to read and write after her first marriage but the fact neither Thomas Uren nor John Hoskin appear to have been literate suggests that may have been unlikely.
I suggest a bit of vacant space remain clear on that drawing board.
Not sure how much I can do right now but I will try to delve further into the mystery.
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 22, 2021 4:11:15 GMT -5
I am far from 100% convinced and I think we need to maintain an open mind on this but it does appear we are starved of options. The main concern is the apparent lack of another obvious widowed Mary Uren to have been the bride of John Hoskin in 1775.
On the naming of son William Hosking Uren - as I mentioned in my earlier post it seems very unusual for John Uren to have had a step-father named John Hosking but then name his own first son 'William Hosking Uren'. The more likely reason, if we accept that the sequence of marriages is correct, would be that this son was named for a step-brother.
Another cautionary note - when trying to determine children from the marriage of John Hoskin to widowed Mary Uren you will need to take into account the following marriage at Lelant:-
22nd October 1772 Lelant - John Hosking of the Parish of Ludgvan tinner and Mary Uren of this Parish spinster were married by Licence - Witnesses:- Thos Uren, James Hosking
It appears children from this marriage were also baptised at Ludgvan! CT
Good points and the signature is a bit confounding. Do you need to be literate to sign a name though? It isn't much more than a fanciful mark. Still it does now make me doubt my reasoning.
I looked at the marriage record and to my eye it looks like it is a rather poor attempt at a signature when she married John HOSKIN, certainly looks like someone who had just learned to write, and perhaps unable to write anything but her name.
I heard it said that if a groom couldn't sign, often the bride wouldn't sign so as not to cause embarrassment. Perhaps it was a case of this?
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jul 23, 2021 4:35:11 GMT -5
With the Hoskin marriage Mary Uren has definitely signed although it does appear to be a 'laboured' effort. But I did get to thinking about what you said which prompted me to take another look at both marriage records. And I noticed something rather interesting ....
I have tried to add a couple of attachments here so let's hope it works!
The first attachment is the sign Mary Carbess made when she married Thomas Uren and the second is the signiature from the marriage to John Hoskin. Pay attention in the first image to the 'scrawl' just after 'sign of' and have a close look at it. Then take a look at the first part of the name 'Mary' in the signiature from the second image.
Now take particular note of the 'Ma' and you will see that there is a remarkable similarity! Lacking firsthand knowledge of events of the time I can only offer the possibility that perhaps in 1769 Mary was just learning how to write her name and by 1775 she had been able to do so. Perhaps that was all she ever learned to write ............ but we may never know!
Nevertheless - I now see enough similarity there to suggest that your conclusion may have been correct and that it was indeed Mary Carbess who later married John Hoskin.