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

[Wiggy]

Hi all,

The article JM refers to (reply 263) is one we've had in family lore (FL) forever  - I've read it so many times I almost know it by heart - almost!   What it does NOT say is that Catharine was married before -  She might
well have been - probably was - but it doesn't actually say that.    And you've forgotten what - - -
 - Robyn I think - told me early in the piece-  7 years desertion meant one
could claim to be free to marry again -  so that isn't a deterrent to my way of thinking - unless husband was in the offing, and that doesn't seem to be the case.     Thinking  thinking . . .  What if Thomas wouldn't marry her for some reason - goodness knows why -  but it could have been the 'circumstances of long previous existence not within her own control'.
 
I don't have the certificates for Anne that you girls are talking about - have
looked at what can be expected from Tasmanian certificates of those years and have decided not
 to fork out $70 (tight that's me) to be told what I already know.  Parents names were not on certs
in those days - nor anything else helpful - but I have seen index of Anne's marriage.    I got Thomas Jnr's death cert for 1904 to find out who his father was - didn't give anything helpful even in 1904 - not even the fact
that he'd been married and fathered about 15 children.

Thinking, thinking . . . .( and some of what I think is that if those certificates were in Victoria, they'd have all the relevant info at half the price!)

Cheers folks,

Wiggy

[majm]

Hi All,
Please think about the following:
1. That letter to the editor clearly explains that the impediment to Catharine's marriage WAS WITH CATHARINE.  "because it was discovered that the faithful and valuable female, ..... was unhappily unable to enter into the legal estate of matrimony, in consequences of circumstances of long previous existence not within her own control, which she could neither alter nor recur to....
2. Who owned those prying eyes?  Was the dobber Winifred or Bridget McNally and if either of them, what were the names of their immediate MALE family members or the names of the settlers to whom they were assigned? -
a) WHO DOBBED    and b) how were they related to Catharine -   find answers to a) and b) and you solve "WHO WAS CATHARINE"
JM

 

[majm]

Bit More, this time from the Colonial Times and Tasmanian Advertiser
1. Fri 28 Oct 1825.  Licencees for next 12 months  include John Pearce of the Joiners Arms Murray St
2. Fri 14 Oct 1825.  JOINERS' ARMS INN and PUBLIC HOUSE, Murray-street, near the Post Office.-J. PEARCE, late of New Norfolk, acquaints his Friends and the Public, that he has taken and entered upon the above old established House, (lately carried on by Mr. THOMAS   RANSOM), .....
John Pearce - did he know who owned those prying eyes?  Umm, well that's a notion that would be hard to prove or disprove.

Ummmm..... I phoned a friend again last evening, re 7 years and Desertion and free to re-marry.  This 'practice' can be misunderstood. Marriages conducted according to RC rites were not part of that practice.  But usually the 7 years commences from the last known sighting of the other party.  Transportation does not lead to the 7 year desertion rule  IF both parties are in the same Colony, and VDL and NSW all part of same Colony, definitely one Colony until say 14 June 1825. 

[regross]

JM,
I liked way she is referred to so respectfully in that article. One possible reason over which she had no control was if her husband was in an asylum for the insane. No divorce was possible and everyone would have known about it if not spoken opening about it Worth a thought???

regards

Robyn

[majm]

Hi Robyn,

Yep, as in perhaps Castle Hill Asylum in Sydney?  - But we need to know HIS surname,  my phone a friend seems to think McNally was her nee name.

JM

[regross]

Wiggy, Jm and Dav

In 1811 the NSW government established what was known as a 'lunatic asylum' in Castle Hill for the care and treatment of the mentally ill. The facility moved to Liverpool in 1825.

andan intersting perspective  athttp://www.studymore.org.uk/sunrise.htm

try googling Castlehill Asylum and you will find lots of interesting reading

We do have a very narrow timeframe and these records may (unlikley thuough) also mention Christina as a wife a in inmate. Records are available in  NSW!!

this post: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/AUS-PT-JACKSON-CONVICTS/2009-02/1235182891

Robyn

[Wiggy]

Hi folks,

Go away for a quiet weekend and you have my esteemed GGGg'ther associating with lunatics and I don't know what-all!      Had a look at that Rootschat site Robyn - interesting - but it doesn't ring any 'vibes' with me.  That doesn't mean much - I know but . . .

Thanks for clearing up the '7 year' bit JM - your 'phone a friend' sounds like someone to hang on to! I did think that RC marriages mightn't come under that particular umbrella whatever anyone else did.  And an RC marriage does sound possible first time around for Catharine if she was married before meeting Thomas R. - even though second time was definitely in the Anglican church.

Onwards ever onwards.     

Wiggy

[majm]

Umm, would you believe    a soldier with the 48th Regiment on foot named John MCNALL is listed on following site http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~garter1/m48th.htm  I know that the 48th were garrison forces in VDL and at PJ and further, from as early as July 1817.  I  cannot find  John McNall  mentioned in Clem Sargent's book on the 48th (although I can find mention of my gggg grandparents and family).   
JM

[Wiggy]

Hi JM and Robyn,

I looked at the 48th reg in VDL last Tuesday when at the State library and found that John McNall - except that in the original it looked more like McNabb - and he also seem ed to be in the 73 Highland Reg. which Robyn suggested needed looking into as well.    (If I remember correctly!)

Robyn,  thanks for PM - no offence taken, and I certainly didn't mean to give any - I was laughing when I wrote that bit about lunatics - and yes, there often wasn't much wrong with the people incarcerated.   It is definitely worth keeping in mind.   I've noted it!

Much to do today.  Must away.

Wiggy