7
« on: Friday 13 March 15 20:20 GMT (UK) »
the social history of a time and place can often offer a glimpse of who people were and why they took the steps they did in life. On the Katherine and Catherine debate, I think it does just come down to Katherine being spelling that was going out of fashion in faour of catherine more so than a religous thing. It was only with the proper keeping of records in the late 18th century that these things started becoming more important to people. It's a point to note that the first half of the nineteenth cenrtury was a time when a great many still couldn't read or write so spelling wasn't necessarily a big deal for them.
Religion too is a less clear thing in the first half of the century as Presbyterians were regarded by those in the established church as no better than Catholics, for whom they had little regard. There wasn't necessarily open hatred as such but those in the established church would have considered themselves, privately at least, as being socially better than Presbyterians and Catholics. That said, marriage to and between Protestants and Catholics wasn't as uncommon rurally as many would think.
Marriage itself prior to the 1840s wasn't as big a deal as it was later in the century. for rural folk, living in small tight knit communities where families knew each other going back a century or two, marriage was more conceptual than religious. Often it was a case where, as long as the families and the communities regarded them as married then that was good enough. Jumping the broomstick so to speak. Starting in the 1830s and moving into the Victorian age, Ministers applied soft pressure on their parishoners who were also employers that it was their moral duty to ensure their employees were married in the eyes of god and not living in sin. It became common for married men to earn more than those that weren't so men started marrying. It was as true then as it is now that most simple folk were god fearing but not especially religious. In truth though, children born out of wedlock for a community like Slaughtmanus wouldn't have been a big deal as long as their parents lived as man and wife. One actual upshot of the pressure to marry was the growth of arranged marriage. It wasn't rife but equally not uncommon for a young woman to attract the attention of a middle aged farmer in need of a wife. A labourer could find his circumstances improved by agreeing to marry the poor girl off to a man over twice her age. Such practices happened in rural Ireland right up until the early 1950s, indeed my wife has an aunt who found herself in such a position when just a girl of 17 in the late 1940s.
That makes it all the more remarkable for Catherine to have left her husband. Then again, with limited knowledge of emigrant history, I've always felt that Ulster-Scots who went abroad took their religion but were hoping to get away from the social restrictions of their homeland as much chasing the dreams of better lives in Australia, USA, South Africa etc.
I think it's telling that the first thing the Buchanans do on arrival in Australia is leave Melbourne. Fair enough, there was a gold rush and the newspapers in Ireland virtually tell people that the streets of Melbourne are paved with gold. Folk from Belfast and Londonderry would still probably have been more likely to stay in Melbourne and tried to seek their fortune in a more built up environment. The Buchanans however came from a place so small and rural that it wasn't even, and still isn't on the map. There were a good five miles away from the nearest village in Claudy.
I'm probably telling you what you already know but the Genghis Khan sailing of 1853 was a very famous one and perhaps the worst sailing any emigrant ship ever encountered without actually floundering.