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

[majm]

Ummmm........

If all else fails, you could consider this lass as perhaps "her" - no first name, and you would need to have a hearing problem to convert McKellar to McNally, but ummm......... my imaginitis tis working overtime and if the surname was handwritten, ummm, the "ar" ending could be "y" and the "Ke" could be "Na" without too much trouble at all, at all, at all ........ as I think there's an Irish twist to this puzzle.

(Again this find is from NSW State Records online index - do you have access to the reels in VDL oops, Tassie  )

JM

MCKELLAR, Miss
 
1815 Jul 12 To accompany John Drummond's family to Hobart (Reel 6045; 4/1733 p.164)
 
1815 Jul 18 On list of passengers to embark on "Emu" for the Derwent (Reel 6004; 4/3494 p.125)
 

[Wiggy]

In response to reply No. 160, - yes - that is the very same Catherine McNalty you found yesterday! 

Re next two - Don't know if David has considered those - I am a bit hamstrung - don't have ability to look at these indexes - no doubt the SRO will chase up your references in time!! 

I'm impressed with your imaginitis and poor hearing hearing!  I think you have a very bad case of it!   Excellent!   

Wiggy

[majm]

Hi there,

I wish I could get to the NSW archives and look up those index references for you, but its a long trip for me.  I have read back through the thread several times, and get somewhat confused.   I had some spare time earlier today and I have been going through the 1788-1825 NSW Col Sec indexes just looking at each heading hoping to spot Catharine or Catherine, or Kitty or variations etc and also have gone through most of the "Mc" names.  So far, NIL sightings except for the three I posted earlier. 

As she's NOT McNalty, then I agree with the thread, that it seems she was either using an alias or was not a convict who landed firstly in Sydney in the timeframe 1810-1919. 

Do you have access to the General Musters, or only to indexes for them ?

1. I have forebears who came free in 1817 and they were so very difficult to find simply because they came free, so I do understand the difficulties in searching for HER.  As mine stayed in Sydney, I found them on the 1828 NSW Census.  So,  WAS THERE A CENSUS in 1828 or thereabouts in Tassie?   

2. Do you know if she could read or better still if she could read AND write? Possibly to consider if there are documents with her signature on it. 

3. Has anyone checked out the references cited on the Aust Biography info on Thomas Ransom or followed up on any possible connection between HER and the names mentioned in that summary?  The references could have additional info that was NOT included in the summary. 

4. Or has the following newspaper reference been checked out Colonial Times (Hobart), 22 Jan 1830 - its mentioned in the references in the Biography for Von Stieglitz, Frederick Lewis (1803 - 1866)?   It could be a reference to "  1830 he married Catherine Christiana McNally, who owned an inn at Kempton" which of course is mentioned in this thread, BUT it could also be a reference just to HER.  I couldn't figure out from this thread IF you had checked out that particular newspaper edition, so sorry if I am asking a question you have already sorted.

Well, that's my thoughts to the present.  Perhaps if you have a moment, you could post a further summary and a list of questions that you would like various RChatters to follow up for you.  There's the Irish board option too, as I am convinced McNally is of Irish origins, and with her marrying an Irishman in 1830, well perhaps she was born in that county and .... there goes the imaginitis again         .   

Cheers,

JM

[majm]

Ummm,

Have you checked out the convicts on the ship CATHERINE arriving VDL 1814. 

Ummm,

JM

[Wiggy]

Hi JM,

You are a good woman - just like Catharine was!    

Q 1. Don't know about 1828 in Tassie - but we want to find her much earlier than that.  Before 1817 - but she may well have arrived with the first settlers - just don't know.  I'm told with the first settlers is highly unlikely - 'it was a penal settlement'  - but  - who knows?

David has trawled the musters and every list he can lay hands on - and every permutation he can think of.  Apparently there were musters annually in Tasmania for the first years.  I have briefly looked through some of the musters without coming up with anything new - but not nearly as thoroughly as David has done over the years he's been looking.   I spent a few hours with them last Tuesday at the state library - I find reading them very difficult on the microfilm - don't know if David can see them in hard copy.    I've also trawled through the Hobart Town Gazette for any mentions - so has he to a much greater degree:  ditto Col. Sec's letters.

As I keep saying, I don't have anything positive to say Catharine ISN'T a convict - just that the 'family lore' to which I keep harking back, does not have her as a convict - it has proved pretty accurate to date - no other evidence at all! - But as Thomas's convict status was known, and the other convict forebears were known, and the marine's status was known, I can't see any reason why Catharine's status as a convict (if she was one) wouldn't be known too.   It is negative evidence, but as strong as I can get.   Why happily tell one's story and hide another??  The other reason I have for thinking she came free is that the convicts are so very well documented - and Catharine has slipped in under the radar.  The convicts didn't often do that, but it seems free settlers often did.
 
Q 3.Yes we know about the ADB entries for Fred Stieglitz and Thomas Ransom, and the references to Catharine in them.
See nothing about being a convict there for her is there??

Q 2. There is a marriage certificate to Fred in 1830 - I have that but I don't think Catharine signed her own name - don't think Fred'k did either - it all seems to have been written in one hand - if she did sign, it is very good writing.
Still looking for any other documentation.   But really, both she and Fred should have signed themselves.

Question 4 - yes


Our questions are -
1 who was she?
2 where did she come from and when?
3. Why couldn't she marry Thomas?  -   See reference in ADB for Thomas.

Apart from that, everything is pretty clear really!!!   

Re last post - yes to the 'CATHERINE' - and all the Catherines on the 'Kangaroo' - and all the Catherines arriving in Tasmania on whatever vessel whatsoever - (and all the Catherines known to man I do believe)   

Cheers      we will find her . . .we WILL find her  . . . WE WILL find her . . .  WE WILL FIND HER!   

Wiggy

[majm]

OH DEAR.......

Ah, so the marriage certificate you have, its a copy of the register - and you are looking at the handwriting of the registrar or clergy or whoever transmitted the record from the church to the record keeper etc.  Does it note the church where the ceremony was performed?  If so, perhaps the parish still has the original where they both signed their names?  - Cause I have copy of 1817 NSW marriage registry where my two forebears signed (umm, she with her X mark, he with his full signature).  But when I ordered that record from the NSW BDM ummm, I get a typed up document, which doesn't do much for me at all.  ESPECIALLY when I mention that on the parish document with their signatures THEIR AGES were also noted, BUT the NSW BDM certificate did NOT include that info. 

Ummm, when were VDL marriage records first kept separate from NSW records?  ie Should I consider trawling the NSW BDM marriages for any possible earlier marriages for HER - thus trying to find the encumberance to her marriage to Thomas?  I know Trish has been down that path, but I will have looky look look too.  Fresh eyes sometimes find the needle in the haystack.

Fingers and toes crossed here that you can get to the parish records, if only to read what she wrote for her surname when marrying Freddy V 

And, have you considered posting on the RC Irish boards for anyone who has access to Irish records late 1700's early 1800's for possible birth for her?  I think I heard that the Irish records are being easier to research now.

JM

[majm]

Bit More,

In 1810 in a C of E service at Parramatta, a Catharine CLEMENS married a Joseph MCKINLEY or MCKENLEY.  I cannot find any children of that marriage, nor a definite death for either Joseph or Catherine.  Perhaps the couple were stowaways to VDL (imaginitis at work here).  However, I did find a death for a Catherine McKenley or McKenly aged 50 in 1826, perhaps that was Catherine Clemens - not sure, and you would probably need buy a transcript to sort out that. 

So I also looked at NSW deaths from 1810 to 1830  - there's a Michael McNALLY who died aged 35 in 1827 - if there was a connection between him and Catharine that would explain why there's no marriage to Thomas Ransom when she first appeared in VDL.  Ummmm  I presume the Michael McNally who died in 1827 was NOT the same one as found previously for a spouse of her that I promised NOT TO GO THERE on.

Also  there's Patrick McANNELLY who died aged 26 in 1827.  These various spellings could be worthy of keeping a note on.

I did not find any marriages for any Catherine to either of those two males (Michael or Patrick noted above).

There's also an 1818 death for a 21 year old James McAnally  and an 1822 death for a John McNalley, aged 32. 

Of course that's going down the path that McNally was her married surname. 

Umm, OH is due home shortly, and I umm have not started our evening meal  - Cheers,

JM

 

[Wiggy]

JM  - no you don't have to go trawling!    nice of you to offer 

What I looked at were the original parish records, on micro-film, at the Hobart Library.  I took a photo of it (cert.) and it has turned out quite well considering.  She and Fred were married at Kempton/Green Ponds.
Funny but it just says they were married by licence - no age required - just adult;  no marital status required so she didn't even have to write widow/spinster or anything.   (I was wondering what the difference between licence and banns was in those days - she was married by licence, the others on the page were married by banns.  I know what banns are but wonder at the difference in recording.)

The thing about Tasmanian records is that they don't include much detail - which I find quite peculiar.  Victorian records are much 'more betterer' at supplying all the interesting details.

I have Thomas Jnr's birth record - original obtained same way - and that just says mother Catharine McNally unmarried - no father  given.   I also have his death certificate 84 years later and that doesn't give any parents/wife/children or anything.  Have a look at 'Jaunay site' and she/he tells you what the different state certificates supply - Tassie is way behind the eight ball for info.

Putting a post on the Irish board is definitely worth a try - have heard things are a bit grim there though re records!

Am hoping David will arrive back from Launceston with the one and only previously unseen Catharine - one thing I will say - she 'signed' her marriage certificate as Christina.  Her name Catharine is spelt like that - with an 'a' in the middle not 'e' - and I don't know if the recorders just spelt all the 'Catherine''s alike  with an 'e', but I haven't seen any others of them spelt as Catharine - but ours is!   Get all that bit??   (And there are no other variations of Catherine either - so I think it is a recorder's spelling!)    Thing is, that Catharine is different - but no sign of the difference except on Thomas Snr's Will, and in the HTG report re her claiming Thomas's Will.   Don't suppose it matters - just interesting!

REALLY LOVE  the serendipity of the Clemens bit!!  Don't know about either of those, but don't think that is the Michael McNally - as that Catherine married 'another' in 1810.  The James and John I think we've discounted.


Hanging in there

Wiggy

[majm]

Hi there,

Umm, in NSW in 1828 one of my lot married by licence rather than by banns.  I think because he was a widower, ie they had to get permission from the NSW governor to marry.  Both bride and groom had NO convict background, HE was widowed in NSW in 1827, she was a spinster.  I think LICENCE cost more than a banns marriage.  Also, sometimes licence was a way to a marry quickly rather than wait for the bump to appear while the banns were being called each week.

It is odd that Tassie records for the period when under the NSW governorship are NOT as detailed as the NSW ones of that same era - really odd, cause they would have had the same set of rules for keeping records. 

JM.