1
England / Re: Question about the registration index books
« on: Sunday 08 December 13 13:04 GMT (UK) »
Good point, Stan, that would certainly be a good reason for actually shelling out for the certificate.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Australia / Re: Friedrich Wilhelm LEHMANN b. abt 1879 South Australia
« on: Sunday 08 December 13 13:03 GMT (UK) »
That's really interesting, and raises some interesting new questions. Thanks for that !
3
Australia / Re: Australian censuses
« on: Sunday 08 December 13 12:55 GMT (UK) »
How does reply #12 eliminate a possible connection between John who died in Palestine in 1917, to the Victorian family ?
4
Australia / Re: Mary E A BROWNE of Sydney
« on: Sunday 08 December 13 12:51 GMT (UK) »
There is a VERY LARGE police station, in fact, the LARGEST police station for the entire central Sydney area, occupying the entire block bounded by Goulburn Street, Riley Street, Campbell Street, Hunt Street and Brisbane Street, the corner of which site also touches Commonwealth Street at the intersection of Hunt Street, Brisbane Street and Commonwealth St. The lower end of the site is now a park.
I don't know how you missed it ?
This police station was constructed about 35 years ago, I believe.
I don't know if this large site had any law enforcement use or background prior to the construction of the present police facility.
I don't know how you missed it ?
This police station was constructed about 35 years ago, I believe.
I don't know if this large site had any law enforcement use or background prior to the construction of the present police facility.
5
Australia / Re: John Spilsbury convict sent to NSW
« on: Sunday 08 December 13 12:37 GMT (UK) »
Your capacity to presume or confect the existence of presumptions by other people is extraordinary !
I am not assuming a link between illiteracy and criminality, at all.
Let me spell it out for you.
The "lower class" ( for want of a better term, lest you start making presumptions about assumptions again ), were not much in the habit of placing ads and announcements in the newspapers. You will observe, in the newspapers of the day, many advertisements, announcements and random pieces of information about the gentry, the merchants, the officials, the professionals, the graziers and the trades.
You will see next to no information about the small-holders, labourers, and others. Many of these were former convicts, many were not. And among the former convicts, many had no track record of criminal misconduct in Australia.
In that period, the gentry, merchants, officials, graziers and tradesmen were generally literate, and many of the smallholders, labourers, workers and ex-convicts were not.
I see it as somewhat unusual, to have an advertisement placed in the newspaper, as John Spilsbury's advertisement concerning his absconded wife, which specifically draws attention to his illiteracy, particularly as there seems to be no obvious reason why it would be mentioned at all. I have read thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of these newspapers, and that still strikes me as somewhat odd. The point being, that being illiterate is not inconsistent with being a former convict. The use of the double negative in the preceding sentence is intentional and has semantic meaning. This should not be taken to mean an assumption is implied that illiteracy implies criminality, or that criminality implies illiteracy, or the literacy implies an absence of criminality. In fact, to say that A is not inconsistent with B, is to specifically deny making any of those assumptions.
Nevertheless, the fact that the ad specifically draws attention to John Spilsbury's illiterate state, highlights the unusualness of his ad, because most such ads were placed by middle class rather than lower class people.
I am not assuming a link between illiteracy and criminality, at all.
Let me spell it out for you.
The "lower class" ( for want of a better term, lest you start making presumptions about assumptions again ), were not much in the habit of placing ads and announcements in the newspapers. You will observe, in the newspapers of the day, many advertisements, announcements and random pieces of information about the gentry, the merchants, the officials, the professionals, the graziers and the trades.
You will see next to no information about the small-holders, labourers, and others. Many of these were former convicts, many were not. And among the former convicts, many had no track record of criminal misconduct in Australia.
In that period, the gentry, merchants, officials, graziers and tradesmen were generally literate, and many of the smallholders, labourers, workers and ex-convicts were not.
I see it as somewhat unusual, to have an advertisement placed in the newspaper, as John Spilsbury's advertisement concerning his absconded wife, which specifically draws attention to his illiteracy, particularly as there seems to be no obvious reason why it would be mentioned at all. I have read thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of these newspapers, and that still strikes me as somewhat odd. The point being, that being illiterate is not inconsistent with being a former convict. The use of the double negative in the preceding sentence is intentional and has semantic meaning. This should not be taken to mean an assumption is implied that illiteracy implies criminality, or that criminality implies illiteracy, or the literacy implies an absence of criminality. In fact, to say that A is not inconsistent with B, is to specifically deny making any of those assumptions.
Nevertheless, the fact that the ad specifically draws attention to John Spilsbury's illiterate state, highlights the unusualness of his ad, because most such ads were placed by middle class rather than lower class people.
6
Australia / Re: Alfred CLUNEY b. London abt 1831, d. Sydney 1873
« on: Sunday 08 December 13 12:13 GMT (UK) »
part 2: message divided because it exceeds 5000 character limit.
Francis Cluney born in 1847 died in 1920, he married a woman called Julia Casey, and he had one son, Henry Maurice Cluney born about 1885. Francis Cluney is recorded as an employee in a clothing factory. Francis, Julia and Henry Maurice appear in the 1901 and 1911 census. Henry Maurice Cluney married Louisa Lillian Gray in 1905 and they had at least 5 children between 1905 and 1911 , who appear in the 1911 census, one of their children was the fourth Francis Cluney, born in 1906.
Francis Frederick Cluney born 1829 was in the Crimean War. His medals were auctioned in London, last year. He then lived in London, in Ireland, at Cork and Wales before moving to Adelaide in 1882, where he died in 1887 in spectacular fashion. Francis born 1847 also lived at Cork, where his son Henry Maurice was born ( as claimed in the 1901 and 1911 census as Henry Maurice's birthplace ).
The first identifiable child of Henry, of Alfred and of Francis was called Harriet, in each case, which is curious.
There is only one other family of Cluneys in the south east of england. A John Cluney married a Martha Harrison, from Queensborough Kent, and their children and grandchildren are speculatively identifiable in the BDM records and the census records. They appear to account for all the other Cluneys that occur in SE England. It is not a common name, although confounded by the alternative spelling Clooney. I am not speculating on any link between this family of John Cluney and the descendants of Francis Cluney, I only remark that these two families appear to account for all identifiable Cluney BDM and census entries in SE England.
The key elements of my speculative analysis of this family are, that the family of Henry Cluney (1819-1881), whose father was allegedly Francis ( as claimed to the clergyman at his 1851 marriage ), and the brothers Alfred and Francis Cluney ( born 1827 and 1829 ), who parents were Francis Cluney, the tax official, and his wife Margaret, are the same. And futhermore, that the Francis and Margaret Cluney who lived in London in the 1820's, are the same ones who married and had children at Liverpool after 1815.
The records of registrars, marriage celebrants and census takers are only as good as what people tell them. If someone shows up at the church to be married, and says their father's name was Francis, but he is dead, and therefore not going to show up to the wedding, then who is going to argue with them ?
Francis Cluney born in 1847 died in 1920, he married a woman called Julia Casey, and he had one son, Henry Maurice Cluney born about 1885. Francis Cluney is recorded as an employee in a clothing factory. Francis, Julia and Henry Maurice appear in the 1901 and 1911 census. Henry Maurice Cluney married Louisa Lillian Gray in 1905 and they had at least 5 children between 1905 and 1911 , who appear in the 1911 census, one of their children was the fourth Francis Cluney, born in 1906.
Francis Frederick Cluney born 1829 was in the Crimean War. His medals were auctioned in London, last year. He then lived in London, in Ireland, at Cork and Wales before moving to Adelaide in 1882, where he died in 1887 in spectacular fashion. Francis born 1847 also lived at Cork, where his son Henry Maurice was born ( as claimed in the 1901 and 1911 census as Henry Maurice's birthplace ).
The first identifiable child of Henry, of Alfred and of Francis was called Harriet, in each case, which is curious.
There is only one other family of Cluneys in the south east of england. A John Cluney married a Martha Harrison, from Queensborough Kent, and their children and grandchildren are speculatively identifiable in the BDM records and the census records. They appear to account for all the other Cluneys that occur in SE England. It is not a common name, although confounded by the alternative spelling Clooney. I am not speculating on any link between this family of John Cluney and the descendants of Francis Cluney, I only remark that these two families appear to account for all identifiable Cluney BDM and census entries in SE England.
The key elements of my speculative analysis of this family are, that the family of Henry Cluney (1819-1881), whose father was allegedly Francis ( as claimed to the clergyman at his 1851 marriage ), and the brothers Alfred and Francis Cluney ( born 1827 and 1829 ), who parents were Francis Cluney, the tax official, and his wife Margaret, are the same. And futhermore, that the Francis and Margaret Cluney who lived in London in the 1820's, are the same ones who married and had children at Liverpool after 1815.
The records of registrars, marriage celebrants and census takers are only as good as what people tell them. If someone shows up at the church to be married, and says their father's name was Francis, but he is dead, and therefore not going to show up to the wedding, then who is going to argue with them ?
7
Australia / Re: Alfred CLUNEY b. London abt 1831, d. Sydney 1873
« on: Sunday 08 December 13 12:12 GMT (UK) »There is apparently a Henry Cluney (c.1819-1881), who's father was apparently a Francis Cluney, and also had a son called Francis, and also had a daughter called Harriet, which is a name that Alfred Cluney(1826-1873) and Francis Cluney(1828-1887) gave to their first daughters.
I am suspecting that this Henry Cluney is a brother of Alfred and Francis, and son of Francis who was married in 1815, it would be surprising if he had no other children until 1826.
Sources, references
I am not sure who you think you are, to be petulantly demanding sources and references for every speculative remark, hypothesis or suggestion, but on this occasion I will indulge your arrogance.
Henry Cluney appears in the 1851 UK census, aged 33, born Lancashire. He appears again in the 1871 UK census, aged 52, born Liverpool Lancashire. He was married on 4 June 1851 to Louisa Matthews, daughter of James Matthews, at All Saints, Lambeth, London. Henry's father's name is recorded as Francis Cluney. Source LDS Familysearch index. Henry's wife Louisa appears in the 1871 census, aged 53, born Churchfield Sussex. Churchfield is near Hastings. Henry and Louisa appear to have had three children.. Louisa Margaret Cluney ( 1852-1854 ), Louisa Sophia Cluney (b. 1856, appears in 1871 census aged 15 ) and Henry James Cluney ( 1854-1855 ). It would appear based on the location of these events, that they moved to Brighton, and later back to Lambeth in London again.
Henry and his family live consistently in Lambeth, London for more than 50 years.
A person going by the username of Maggie Kyte has posted a tree on the internet concerning this family. I note that a great-granddaughter of Henry Cluney married a man called Kyte in the 1920's, so I conjecture this woman is a direct descendant of this family. I sent her an email last week, I haven't had any response as yet. All of the details she has published about this family seem to be plausible, potentially verifiable and consistent. Based on what this Maggie Kyte has published, she seems like neither an idiot nor a fantasist. She even has photos of the more recent ones, presumably her own grandparents or great-grandparents.
Henry Cluney appears to have been married before Louisa Matthews. The 1851 census suggests he had at least three children before his marriage to her, with children Harriet, Francis and George aged 9 4 and 2. Maggie Kyte has posted a copy of the birth certificate of Francis Cluney (b.1847) online, which appears to state that his mother is Mary Cluney formerly Dixon. Neither Maggie Kyte nor myself can observe the apparent marriage of this Henry Cluney to Mary Dixon. Nor is the death of Henry Cluney's supposed first wife, Mary, apparent in the 1849-1851 time frame when she would have apparently died. This is an acknowledged lacuna in this hypothesis. Given the propensity of these Cluneys to visit Ireland, maybe he married there ?
Louisa Cluney died in 1875, aged 57, at Lambeth, and Henry apparently had a third marriage in 1875. Henry Cluney died in 1881, aged 62.
The LDS sources reveal a man called Francis Cluney was married to a woman called Margaret Horne at the Holy Trinity Church, Liverpool, Lancashire, England on 1 May 1815. The LDS sources record the baptism of 6 or 7 children for this couple, some of them recorded many times, and some of them under the name of Clooney and some as Cluney. These are Harriet Cluney, baptised 12 May 1816 at St Peters, Liverpool, Richard Henry Cluney bapt St Peters Liverpool 1818, Alfred Cluney bapt 15 Oct 1820 at St Peters Liverpool, Francis bapt 18 Sept 1822 at St Peters Liverpool, Alfred Blackly Cluney bapt 29 April 1827 at St George London, and Francis Frederick Cluney bapt 31 May 1829 St Dunstan Stepney London. Alfred born 1827 and Francis born 1829 were both in the military and both of them died in Australia. Both of them claimed to be the sons of Francis Cluney, an excise official, a very uncommon name ( except for four generations of this family ).
There are two Alfreds and Francis in this list. There are several scenarios which would have to be considered. (1) The first Alfred and Francis died (2) They were baptised twice (quite common) (3) They are completely different families and not connected. (2) is plausible, except that the military and australian records have ages which appear to confirm the birth dates of 1827 and 1829. That leaves (1) or (3).
Henry Cluney, who claimed when he married in 1851 that his father's name was Francis Cluney, and claimed in the 1851 and 1871 censuses that he was born in Liverpool, Lancashire , and gave ages corresponding to having been born in about 1819, may, or may not, be the Richard Henry Cluney baptised at Liverpool in 1818 with parents Francis and Margaret Cluney. Or possibly this Richard died and Henry was born the following year.
A Francis Cluney, who lived at Mile End Old Town, died in 1830. A Margaret Cluney aged 74 died in 1869, a plausible candidate for the Margeret Horne married in 1815 to Francis Cluney.
8
Australia / Re: Alfred CLUNEY b. London abt 1831, d. Sydney 1873
« on: Sunday 08 December 13 10:39 GMT (UK) »There is apparently a Henry Cluney (c.1819-1881), who's father was apparently a Francis Cluney, and also had a son called Francis, and also had a daughter called Harriet, which is a name that Alfred Cluney(1826-1873) and Francis Cluney(1828-1887) gave to their first daughters.
I am suspecting that this Henry Cluney is a brother of Alfred and Francis, and son of Francis who was married in 1815, it would be surprising if he had no other children until 1826.
My sister, who ( surprise ! surprise ! ), has similar research interests to me, but goes about things in a different way, is known to post on this forum. Her activities depend very much on her workload.
Sources, references?
Is there a chatter with multiple usernames on this thread?
Cando
9
Australia / Re: John Spilsbury convict sent to NSW
« on: Sunday 08 December 13 10:33 GMT (UK) »
He is indeed too old to be the one born in 1817, and sent to Australia in 1840 aged 23.
There is at least one other John Spilsbury in Australia before 1840, his marriage is recorded in 1831, and the failure of his marriage is evidenced by the newspaper ads he placed in 1832 stating that his wife had absconded for no reason, and that nobody should give her credit. And he was illiterate, so quite possibly a convict. The list of convicts is not complete.
There is at least one other John Spilsbury in Australia before 1840, his marriage is recorded in 1831, and the failure of his marriage is evidenced by the newspaper ads he placed in 1832 stating that his wife had absconded for no reason, and that nobody should give her credit. And he was illiterate, so quite possibly a convict. The list of convicts is not complete.