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

[majm]

Hi Wiggy,

Practical issue

I am not certain, but I think that threads should NOT go more than 20 pages on Rootschat.  I suggest you contact the Moderator to confirm this, and to get advice so that we can keep track, and so that others in the future can follow up on any of the early convicts, settlers, and characters that have been mentioned in this thread.

Just An Opinion,

Just Moi.

[majm]

Ummm,

Sighting of a Catherine KELLY, convict, on same ship as a James McQ..... with a possible alias of MCNALLY. Image on Ance***

Catherine Kelly on the  Fortune, Alexander  Convicted  29 May 1805 transported  Jan 1806. Tried in London.

I am posting a part of one page listing some of those transported on that voyage, hoping that someone can decipher the surname of James McQ....

JM

 

[regross]

JM

Checking the Old Bailey site we can rule her out.
CATHARINE KELLY was aged 39!!!! in May 1805

Reference Number: t18050529-5

Robyn

[majm]

Ta Robyn,

Any ideas though on that male convict's surname?  I have just been reading through the Syd Gazette online, and noticed that the Alexander carried wives and children of convicts, and I am wondering if that James McQ ..... with a bracket to include McNally, could have brought his wife and child - possibly a child named Catharine ? 
 
JM

[regross]

JM,

That is entirely possible but just how we find out names is another matter, Iwonder if his court records would show them but how do you access them from Aus as they are most likely not online this is from the QLD site:
http://www.slq.qld.gov.au/info/fh/convicts

James McQuire, one of 306 convicts transported on the Fortune and Alexander, January 1806.

    * Alias(es): McNally
    * Details: Sentence details: Convicted at Lancaster Quarter Sessions for a term of 7 years.
      Vessel: Fortune and Alexander.
      Date of Departure: January 1806.
      Place of Arrival: New South Wales.
      Source: Australian Joint Copying Project. Microfilm Roll 87, Class and Piece Number HO11/1, Page Number 372

cant't find him listed in http://search.ancestry.com/Browse/list.aspx?dbid=1590&path=

only

Jas McGlockney           Oct 1805     Lancashire, England

who was sentenced to transportation. (search term James and a year range in Lancashire)
regards

alsoInformation 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.

this marriage in NSW INDEXES


1821 there is a birth to Daniel and Catherine  McNally Mcenelly

so probably not our Catharine but nothing is surprising.

Robyn

[majm]

Hi Robyn,

Thanks,  I will "phone a friend" this evening, to ask for clues about researching the early convicts.  But in meantime, I will try to find anything for him on the NSW State Records, and also on any submitted trees. 

I can't find him on the Col Sec's index under James McQuire but I did notice the following index entry.  Wish I could get to the NSW State Records Office.

MCSALLY, James  In index to land grants in Van Diemen's Land (Fiche 3262; 4/438 p.64)


JM

[majm]

Umm,

Certificate of Emancipation for James McQuire, alias McNally issued 1 May 1811.  - Could he be father of Catharine?  Robyn, I agree that it will be tough to figure out how to find the court records on him, but I will ask that question when I phone a friend later tonight.

JM

[majm]

Umm,  re James McQ alias McNally.

Lancaster Quarter Sessions - tried the online newspapers for 19thC Britain could not find him, and also the following link listed on the Lancashire Resources on RChat, but I could not find him there either! 

http://www.lancastercastle.com/html/convict/default.php

JM

[Wiggy]

OK friends,
I am now being sensible - have got over the silliness of last couple of days.   SORRY about that - was feeling just a tad overwhelmed by the expertise of y'all.   

I really think - in spite of all, or because of all  (not sure which) that Catharine McNally was NOT a convict.  This is not evidence based - it is 'family lore' based!   HUGE faith in family lore!   Not cringing at thought of convicts - just BELIEVE it is not so - I can't say it enough but if all the other convicts in family were known, why not Catharine?  AND the very difficulty of finding her points to someone free.   I know I go on about this - but it's 'in the vibes'!

Have been RBTT  (thanks JM!) and I reckon that the Catharine Rook on the ship with William might be a goer - or the Mrs McNally who came to VDL with husband and Cummings.  Questions: Could they in fact be the same person maybe?  Can anyone prove this??

Run this scenario by yourselves:

1.  Catharine - possibly Rook -  and John McNally have a child in 1811 in Sydney. - evidence of this.
2.  John goes off on the sealing boats - well a John McNally certainly did.
3.  John McNally with wife and family come to VDL with Cummings - 1816 - evidence of this! He got sick of sealing - or injured and couldn't go on maybe - leap of faith.
this is the tricky bit -
4.  Somewhere, somehow Thomas Amos 'meets' Catharine and she becomes pregnant - your job JM!!
5.  Catharine leaves John and goes to Hobart - why?  maybe John was not thrilled with Catharine having Thomas's child - I don't know. leap of faith this bit.
6.  Thomas R takes in Catharine and child, which Thomas adopts - evidence for this adoption per Leo v Steiglitz.

Set out like that it makes sense - Are the Johns the same people??- that is another question.

So a.  let's pretend that that scenario is true - how do we prove it to be so??
or b.   If it is NOT true, how do we prove it NOT to be so??

I know this is simplifying matters somewhat , and re-covering old ground- but, truth to tell, I'm getting dizzy with all the Rooks flying round my head.

What do you think guys?   I mean,   don't stop the other research - but  . . . . . . .

Be interested to hear what you all think.    Too easy??       Possible??        Thomas Amos is the biggest sticking point that I can see.

Wiggy     proud great-great-great-granddaughter of Catharine!!!! (who didn't show up in the book called 'Notorious Strumpets and Dangerous Women'! - love that title.)