Not sure if any of this muddies the waters, or casts a light -
Thomas Ransom - From The Weekly Courier (on film) 23 Mar 26 1904, photo with his bicycle that he started riding at age 75, also article about his death page 26, column 1 same date. Thomas has a birth date of 10 Dec 1821, Hobart. Also photo four generations Thomas Ransom and daughter, grand daughter and great grand son, no names for any of them - 23 May 1903 page 23. Good pictures.
When F.W Von S. dies , Examiner article 15 Apr 1889, p23 c7, he married a daughter of Thomas Amos of Killymoon.
There is an application to marry file that features Catharine McNally marrying Von S. in 1830. Interestingly, the card index that leads to the file (Z1755 film
) has notation on the card- Class C, Arthur File - Arthur would be the govenor, and the class designation would identify a convict. But nothing on the application itself to indicate convict - just bachelor and widow.
If Thomas McNally marries as Thomas Ransom it would suggest that he was not born to McNally, whatever mother's marital status at the time. Children were often raised by widowed mothers new husband. Young daughters took the name of the man who raised them, but boys were assumed to carry name of birth father - to perpetuate the name. If he drops the McNally name I suspect that McNally was not his father.
A shipping list at Tas. Archives has Mr and Mrs F. L. Steiglitz and five children travelling to Sydney June 1852. Wonder who the children are - and what was happening in Sydney?. Not a voyage to take casually in those days.
Thomas's death cert. in Tasmania in 1904 would include provision for parents names - assuming they were known by...probably middle-aged son or daughter, so how accurate.
Wivenhoe.
