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

[Wiggy]

Now that is interesting Trish.

 This is a completely new lead in the hunt!  Now I wonder at Bryan Overand and his good character.     I wonder if he ever married Sarah - and if so, had she died by the time he married Catharine?   One supposes she must have.  Waiting for tonight's installment of the saga, when David reckons he will reveal all!
And Trish, . . .
When you are on to St Phillips, please could you ask about Anne's birth maybe - either as McNally or Overand/Overhand/Overend - somewhere between 1811 and 1814 maybe.   That would be much appreciated.   I suppose it might even be in the indexes for NSW.       

Hi Robyn,
I've been back to the trials and trawled through many of them just reading and getting a feel for the 'summary'  justice being meted out.   It really was terrible just how little evidence was required to send a person to the other ends of the earth for the rest of their life - or a good part of it.   Do you trawl around in Google, or whatever search engine, finding relevant sites, or do you have them pointed out to you as likely places to find info?   I haven't done much Google trawling  - I can see I will have to start!
I read a good book some time ago - fiction but based on fact (whose name I can't remember) - about someone sent out from Bristol to P.J. and then N.I. - funnily enough, one of my ancestors turned up in the book for a cameo appearance!  Not Thomas.

Wiggy     

[davclem]

In between meetings! I contacted Grahame re his query on Bryan/Sarah. He was only really interested in Sarah, and has moved on. Yes,Wiggy, despite my fabrication , there is potential for Bryan to have been an out and out womaniser. Benjamin Ormond was very much involved with convict malarky as well. Off to next meeting!  David

[davclem]

Oh, Bryan was tried Lancaster 1805-David

[Wiggy]

Hi David,

I found Bryan being transported - but not his trial - can't find a way to the Lancaster trials - only things to do with Lancaster Castle.  Can't even find Liverpool trials - will keep looking.   Do you know why he was transported  - his misdemeanor I mean?

I've been out in the sun pruning  leads from the wisteria and vine this afternoon - and thinking, thinking, thinking - and here is my fabrication - which, though I like yours, I think is better - ('cos I want to be able to claim Thomas - who seems a decent type)   I'm not sure I like the cut of Bryan's jib - to use the nautical vernacular.

My take:
I reckon Catharine was maybe not forced, but encouraged, to marry Bryan; but  she didn't like him much - so when he went off to sea again, and she got the opportunity, she took up with this decent chap Thomas - as sort of father figure, which she'd missed since being transported.  If she'd been en-amoured of Bryan, she'd have called her son after him and used his surname for Thomas Jnr  - I mean she was married to him, so no shame there - and she'd have been using his surname - ditto.   So I reckon she and Thomas got it all together - but she couldn't marry him - (already discussed  )  Then, when Thomas died, she needed someone to keep her - can't justify that move      - so she married Fred - (in 1830 by the way - not 29!  I have the certificate.)    I know Thomas was a little older than her - what's a mere 45-50 years between friends.  I mean Thomas must have been in his right mind as he was still receiving grants of land well into his eighties!   Thomas Jnr's baptism certificate shows Catharine unmarried - why bring that 'shame' upon yourself if you are really married? - speaking in the terms of those days you understand.

Maybe Anne was Bryan's daughter and maybe Trish will find her baptism or birth in the NSW indexes - but Thomas is  a Hobart lad, born and bred.   So Anne would have been Thomas's adopted daughter - 'cos following my wonderful fabrication, Catharine didn't really want to have anything more to do with Bryan and removed her daughter - well, he could hardly take her on the ship with him anyway.         

  Like it??             Wiggy     

[Wiggy]

by the way, Selina Anne Stieglitz was born at Fingal in Tasmania!!   Oh well another wonderful story bites the dust.     

Wiggy

[davclem]

Benjamin Ormond/Orman. Forget the theory that Bryan reinvented himself as Ben !!!

Information removed due to copyright violation. See http://www.rootschat.com/forum/copyright.php for more details

RootsChat must deal with any breach of copyright by its members.

For some time the team of Copyright Editors has been removing breaches of copyright and sending detailed personal messages to the member that had posted the information.  Due to the volume of posts and members this is now impractical.  Messages in breach will simply be deleted and this notice posted.  We apologise for any inconvenience caused but are sure you will appreciate the importance of this issue.

[Wiggy]

Evening David,

OK, so we can dismiss Ben from the family then!    I hope!    That just leaves Bryan to attend to.   Very thorough research David!  Don't know where all the info comes from, but I'm impressed.   

 I've been reading the description of Martin Cash at Killymoon - the reference says the 'adopted' daughter seemed younger than Thomas - that means it wasn't Anne - then who I wonder?   

I am still waiting to be convinced that Catharine would not use her married name for Thomas Jnr and for herself when living with Thomas Snr, -  against the acusation of 'living in sin' maybe? - and for her Marriage to Frederick.  Why, why, why??  The only thing is that the marriage record doesn't say she was a spinster!   Well, that's a relief.   Only, I suspect, because it wasn't required piece of info.!   

Another question - what makes you think that Catharine was married when she arrived in Australia - the fact of the child at the trial?

Keep arguing your corner - I might be convinced!   

Wiggy

[davclem]

Martin Cash says "seemed" and you conclude"that means she wasn't"- thats illogical and unsustainable ( Smile)

She has a child at her trial in 1806 which you reckon might be a 'rentachild", the Society of Australian Genealogists " Convicts to NSW 1788-1812" CDRom states "& 1 child" on the Sydney Cove 1807, the 1814 NSW Muster has her with a child by Overhand, she has a child in 1820, and she needs to adopt another one? What does she do with all these children?

 Mind you, your point about Anne's age at birth of her last child is a good point, but Ann could still be in the frame as the 1814 sprog, its biologically possible-  you're the one who reckons Thomas is in the frame at age 125 for young Tom.

I like exclamation marks, they show passion  and conviction, and invite retaliation and encourage challenge, opening  the way to truth- and they have a sense of humour, unlike umlauts .

David
 



The above CD ROM shows her as wife of Michael McNalty/McNall

[Wiggy]

And therein lies the problem David  - I don't have that CD - but I will have to visit the library very soon to have a look at it!    One can look at it in libraries I presume?

Wasn't saying she wasn't married    -  just wondering where the evidence lay/lies.

OK so Anne could still be the daughter - what do you mean I conclude she wasn't - wasn't what?       logic and sustainabe arguments aren't necessarily my strong suites. - but then again, they might be on occasions.  like when I create possible scenarios.   I agree Anne could be Bryan's - so, that lends more weight to my scenario re Catharine ditching Bryan,      i.e. that Anne is now/then known as Ransom.

Wiggy