Please help? RANSOM Thomas 1820: MCNALLY Catharine; AMOS T: STIEGLITZ

[Wiggy]

Morning Julie,

Thanks for the clear up - you've got to the nub of the whole thread!!    Who was Christina, and Why weren't they married??       - that's exactly what we are trying to find out!  They were so evidently a good and faithful partnership.  Thomas's Will names Christina's son as his heir after Christina - but says 'her son Thomas McNally'  - so we are trying to establish whether T Snr was T Jnr's father (of GREAT age), and what prevented the marriage.   There is a write up in the Aust Dict of Biog re Thomas (with a dodgy birth date) which refers to the matter without explaining it.

At the end of the second deposition, what is meant by 'laid the cart with Mrs Owen - 'loaded' is how I'm reading it - correct?  Seems an odd way to put it though!   Makes her sound like a lump of . . .

I love reading what you've added to the thread!   Keep it up - you must be having fun reading the old documents - I find a couple of hours is usually enough for me before I feel bug-eyed!

Re other names of interest  - mine are STANFIELD and KIMBERLEY.  Stanfield was ex marine and Kimberley ex convict as was his wife Mary (CAVENAUGH)    My other interest is GAUNT - but not until 1830 - so beyond VDL.

Cheers

Wiggy

[Wiggy]

Refer to reply 100 last paragraph - (if I could work out how to post quotes, I would and save you the trouble of going back!)  Re prima facie reason for non marriage anyway.

I think the prima facie reason for them not marrying does lie with Thomas - here is my fabrication for today!

Being so much older (48 years) that Catharine Christina, Thomas, being a big hearted, 'respected and esteemed'  man, decided not to hold her to marriage vows in case she wanted to 'hop it' at any stage - however Christina being  'a loyal and valuable partner', was  quite happy to stick around with Thomas - and I like to think they had a genuine affection for each other -  Look how he repaid her - with all his worldly goods!  Maybe, for the same reason, Thomas didn't want to shackle Thomas Jnr to him so did not claim paternity - though he  (al)most certainly had the right to do so. - and he left him well provided for also.  Although he doesn't name T Jnr as his son in the Will, I believe that the fact that he named him his sole heir after Cathatrine is evidence of  - well something!!      

 Will this totally contrived story pass muster I wonder?

The more you read about these convicts - many of them - the more you have to admire their sheer determination to make a go of things in their adopted homeland, don't you think?!   Not just a go, but a great success out of misfortune.   Hats off to them!!

Wiggy     Still smiling.

[davclem]

Barbara Cartland move over!  (Smiley)

David

[Wiggy]

Missed my calling you reckon?

[davclem]

My last cast into the convict pond is WINIFRED McNALLY born c 1785 who arrived in Hobarton on Elizabeth Henrietta 1817, per Canada from Ireland  (March 1816)to Sydney (6/8/1817) , with her
older  sister(?)  Bridget , both native of Co Mayo. Can't quickly find any subsequent reference to her- could have changed her name to a more romantic(Cartlandesque touch that) Catherine Christina to celebrate her new status. If she doesn't run, then its to the settlers pond we must go

David

[Wiggy]

What can I say? . . .Good luck!    Don't let the Irish run away wit yer. 

Me?  I'm off to the Marines!

[davclem]

How can the marines help? A marine on active service pre 1819 will not have adaughter with him aged 30. If he has resigned and been given a grant then he becomes a settler, and still has to have a daughter of the older sort or has to die so that Thomas can access his widow.

If the impediment to the marriage of Thomas and Catherine in 1825 lies with Thomas ie Catherine was not a married woman,The question is "where did Thomas  find  an available 25-29 year old unmarried or widowed free woman in Hobarton between 1815-1819.

 Further , why did she call herself Catherine Christina McNally if that was not her maiden or widowed name-if it was an assumed name, why, and my reading of Sherlock Holmes suggests she will keep the same initials, CM, as her real name. If it was an assumed name, then she could not have been known as anything else in Hobart, so must have come to Hobart with that name already.

Already checked about 500 settlers in HTG in 1818- can't be many left!

David

[Wiggy]

OK OK !  (laughing) 

I was actually thinking more in the line of the Stanfield set up - i.e. marine who had married and had child about 1790 in Sydney - who subsequently came to Hobart -

So they are called settlers by now - alright - I'm off to the settlers then - except, it seems you have beaten me to them.

I am not an RERiT  - more of a VNRiV - so you have to give me a bit of a break!!!   You know - points for trying!    Been looking at shipping lists and everything.    - (regressed again!)

Seriously:
Did Thomas only get to Sydney on the Kangaroo?  Or did he come all the way to Hobart on her?   I can see the trip between N.I. and Sydeny   (Juan Antonio S slip!) of the Kangaroo - but not any trip to Hobart - not on the lists I've been scrutinizing anyway.



Wiggy

[davclem]

This is off top of my head, just off to Launceston for propoganda forum on the benefits of  allowing farmland,water resources, roads, and cultural landscapes be given away to plantations financed byAustralian taxpayers for the benefit of timber companies--but can grab time to check HRT -Historic Records Tasmania.for musters , but this time looking for a McNally not a Ransom, a McNally with a wife, old daughter, mistress, someone available to catch Thomas eye.

No- there was a gap between arriving Sydney from Norfolk, and going to Hobart.The Kanagaroo left Hobart in middle of 1814 ( April?) under Charles Jeffreys and never got there,he wandered here and wandered there and eventually returned to Sydney claiming bad weather,lost his way, it was a more scenic cruise the way he went, whatever. Authorities a bit pissed off, and sent him off again, in August from memory.Really should know these date as well as my birthday, but Al Z says the general drift is OK for the moment.

The NI connection with Thomas is so strong that you would believe that was where Catherine was sourced, a daughter or a widow or discarded mistress of a NI man,but I thought I had checked this out years ago, looking at ages, initials, cross checking unspoken for birds etc. Bear in mind NI was settled 1788 so Catherine , under whatever name, would have to have been one of the ist born there,and therefore traceable. Which was why I fell for the Catherine married Brian met Thomas through Brian and Brian was leaving/had had enough of Brian alternative.

Keep thinking

David