Searching for origins of: MCNALLY, Catharine Christiana

[majm]

Hi Robyn,

If Thomas' wife came out, then that could be her in the 1819 Muster, but she's not listed (at least not with Thomas) on the 1820 muster where Thomas' transportation is noted, as is his pardon, and his "settler" status.  Catharine's not found on the 1820 Muster either....

Of course if Catharine was Thomas' daughter/daughter in law/step daughter etc, yes, those are obviously impediments    Catharine may have been his daughter (if so then she was born earlier than Wiggy suspects), who had at one time married a McNally, (perhaps a garrison soldier), the McNally couple arrive VDL where Catharine finally catches up with her Dad, and when the regiment goes off to its next tour of duty, Catharine stays with her Dad.   

That would explain why she was referred to as Mrs Ransom.  Ransom would be her maiden name, and "Mrs" would be the title indicating she had children.  It would not be Mrs Ransom, "wife" of Thomas.   It would also be another reason why Thomas' will does not get challenged when Catharine seeks its probate, and would also be a simple explanation as to why Catharine's son was willing/interested in being known as Thomas Ransom rather than as Thomas McNally 

Remembering:
Thomas made the will in Jan 1829, Thomas died Feb 1829, Catharine called to front the Justices re her suitability as a licencee in April 1829, Catharine granted licence in Oct 1829, Catharine sought and was granted probate Nov 1829, Catharine's cattle straying in Dec 1829, Catharine married Frederick in Jan 1830....   

PS, no mention in my records of the 48th Reg (in VDL circa 1817-1824) of McNALLY... closest  are McAuley Private Peter, and McAuley, Sargeant John.  I would need to re-read Clem Sargent's book "The Colonial Garrison 1817-1824) to see if those two were ever in VDL....

Cheers, 

JM

[regross]

Except for the age factor (and we forget how young some girls were when they were married off back then) then it does fit with the KNOWN facts.


Robyn

[davclem]

Nah, Robyn, you're on the ball- but Catharine as Thomas daughter has come up before- I think we've all thought that would be a very tidy solution.

  The 1814 date for the obstacle and the   hpothesis  that Thomas received a letter from Elizabeth Ransom (Durrell?) at that time could add weight to the theory. The letter presumably being advice that daughter Catharine was on way, either as free woman or as convict. If Elizabeth, the original Mrs Ransom, was on the way, then she must have died on voyage, never left, died on arrival or met someone else, otherwise she would have appeared in Hobart as Mrs Ransom, and none of this thread would have been needed.

If Catharine was Thomas 'daughter, she was either conceived during a nuptial visit by Elizabeth to the gaol/hulk just before Thomas left in 1788/89, to be born in 1790/91 , "Hi Thomas, long time no see, Guess what", or Catharine was born before 1787 .

If she was his daughter, she was Catharine Ransom, not Catharine McNally, unless she had married a McNally, in which case was was the widow mcNally.

If she was his daughter, she would have been acknowledged as such, as Mrs McNally or Miss Ransom, and everybody would have known she was Thomas' daughter.

She would have been named as Thomas's daughter in his will, not as his friend.

I think that there are too many strikes to run with it- but it sure is a tempting idea!

David

[davclem]

JM,

Re McAuley- I think(!) I mentioned him in the first thread, following up settlers who came out on the Calcutta-  Sgt Mcauley details are in the thread somewhere.

David

[regross]

Knew it was too good to be true but worth revisiting.

Of course she could also have been his wife's child from a later relationship

This info could have been in the leter and it doen't preclude her from
1) being a camp follower using her real father's name
2) a soldiers wife  McNally(or variant)
3) a free settler married to a McNally(or variant)

Robyn

[majm]

Errr.......... 

Could either of you please re-read the will, I've not found where she was referred to as Thomas' friend in that document....   

Errrrrr...........
I've lots of "evidence" from around the 1820's in penal NSW that indicates that women with young children were known as "Mrs" regardless of their maritial status, and in many instances they were Mrs "XYZ", where "XYZ" was the surname of the head of the household without regard for the surnames of the children's father/s. 

Thanks

Cheers,  JM

[majm]

Errr.........

The 1819 Muster where Thomas RANSOM has a wife ... just wondering .... why is this being favoured as being evidence for Catharine Christina McNally when it could well be the very IMPEDIMENT that we have all been searching for ... it seems to me that it is simply evidence that Thomas had a WIFE who was living with him.    

The earliest date for "Mrs Ransom" being used in print seems to be 1823. 

Has anyone actually checked and found the original of (or film of) the parish records for the birth of Thomas McNally...  I have posed that question several times back on the old thread...  Can't see where that was answered, rather there was a long discussion about SUBMITTED records being lodged with the Tasmanian Archives....  Consequently I again note that Thomas McNally is NOT listed on the 1822 muster, nor is Catharine Christina, nor is Ann !  

It could well be that Catharine arrived on Thomas Ransom's doorstep with two children at some date after the 1822 muster and said "Look Dad, I'm your long lost daughter, and look, here's  two grandchildren for you"  I'm NOT convinced that anyone has made the case for the view that Catharine was with Thomas Ransom BEFORE Thomas McNally was born.... 

JM

[regross]

I agree we have just assumed that Catharine was the wife in the muster. But that is all it is an assumption particularly as she is un named.

I know we are right back at the very starting point suggestin that it was not marital relationship but we have looked at so many other scenarios without really digging deeply into father/daughter/grandhildren relationship.

Of course local society may not have known that she was his daughter  but surely the age difference would have had tongues wagging like mad, particularly after Thomas was born  and remember that he was never acknowleged, not even in the will, as Thomas Ransom's son.

It could well be that he did meet up with her in Sydney after getting the letter and this may also explain the delay in getting to Hobart. At this distance in time there are so many possible theories none provable or unprovable all psooible.

Robyn

[davclem]

Robyn,
The delay in getting to Hobart on the Kangaroo in 1814 was due to the strange navigational behavour of the Captain, Lieutenant Jeffries, not to any delay by Thomas in embarking .

JM is right, so far no record of a  "Mrs Ransom" before 1823 (pending correction by Wiggs), and the earliest record of CC McNally is 1820,  and the 1819 "wife" is unidentified. Were these 3 different women, Thomas as a colonial Bluebeard, or the same person, that is the question ?

David