Searching for origins of: MCNALLY, Catharine Christiana

[regross]

I agree Dav the name Rsetta seems to be another link to this line of ROOKs, if not the William you originally thought it might be.

Just kidding but is there any possibilty that Catharine Rook was his wife
added
http://genuki.cs.ncl.ac.uk/DEV/Northam/AppledoreBaptisms/IndependantChurch1.html
William Rooke b 1761 son of William Rook Mariner ans Amy most probably not our man but froma seafaring area lots of teh males were noted as mariners. There are other Rook(e) families there also.

added 2

WILLIAM ROOK of NSW bc1762
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/r/o/o/Peter-L-Rooke/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-Index.html
No sons William nor dauhters Catharine but could have had grandson/daughters of first marriage (not researched in this tree)

Robyn

[davclem]

Change of plans- flights changed, so herewith death of William Rook-

http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-McNMuri-t1-body-d1-d25.html
Murihiku: A History of the South Island of New Zealand and the Islands Adjacent and Lying to the South, from 1642 to 1835
CHAPTER XXV. — Colonization Schemes, 1825 to 1827

Arriving in Sydney in March, 1825, Stewart lost no time in getting his arrangements made for going to New Zealand and he inserted the following advertisement in the local papers.

“For New Zealand, to sail in fourteen days the Fine fast sailing schooner Prince of Denmark, William Stewart Master. Any gentleman wishing to visit these interesting Islands, will find this an excellent conveyance, as the above vessel will return to this Port in four months. For freight or passage apply to the Commander on board or to Robert Campbell. Campbell's Wharf March 15, 1825.”

The fourteen days had to be prolonged to over two months before the Prince of Denmark left “for New Zealand, and thence on an unknown speculating trip.” She left for the Bay of Islands, on 19th May  .The Prince of Denmark sailed from New Zealand on 1st, and reached Sydney on 18th, December, 1825, having on board only 450 seal skins and one passenger, Mr. John Lee.
The schooner, in the course of her voyage, went into very high latitudes, and experienced weather of the utmost severity. One man well known in Sydney, Captain Rook, got frost-bitten, lost the use of his limbs, and died.

David

[Wiggy]

CRUMBS!!!

I went away and come home to 6 pages of theorizing!  HELP!
I really can't take it all in  - I freely admit that.  So will stick to what I KNOW.

Thomas born 18th November,1820, christened St Davids Church Hobart, 14th December, 1820, by Robert Knopwood.   (we all know of R Knopwood don't we!)   That is the church register (transcript?) which I was shown in Hobart Archives Office.  I have been in touch with the diocese of Tasmania about these records - that's the best I can do apparently.  He was born and baptised in 1820 to Catharine McNally, unmarried.

the Catharine Morrison bit came from another relative who has been doing a lot of research and found the reference in a book "Born in the English colony of New South Wales 1788-1800" (or was it 1810)  Anyway, I believe the Kate of 1793 and the Catharine registered as baptised in 1801 are one and the same person - so my friends and authorities would have me believe - sounds good to me.

She could be the person married to John McNally in time to have John Jnr in 1811 - she may have left him in 1814 and come south with Thomas on the Kangaroo (stowaway!!) and become Christina.  Remember John jnr turned up in Sydney in 1822 muster with Ann Clemens?  That solves any problem with him.  Catharine Christina took off and John took up with Ann Clemens who looked after his son, while he went off sealing. I believe he is a different John McNally from the one who came south with the Cummings - no word about him being a convict - that's why I think that - no real proof of anything mind you!  I know I know - you can all prove differently from various musters - maybe!  Me I like it - only one problem - Catharine is four years out in age  - What is four years between friends!     Hypothesizing again!!

While away I did not rest on my laurels - (because as someone put it -'if you are resting on your laurels, you're wearing them in the wrong place!')   I have written a 3000 word synopsis of these two threads - mostly from memory so will need to check lots of things. What I did wonder as I wrote was "could Catharine given 'unmarried' at Thomas's baptism because she wasn't married to his father - i.e. Thomas Snr."    Yes, another Wiggy flight of fancy - I quite like flights of fancy you may have noticed.    But I also quite like the idea that that was the reason for the 'unmarried'.   You may all jump up and down and negate etc - but I know where I've flown to - and you may not be able to retrieve me!!

I honestly can't keep up with all the Rooks and Catharines floating around so I won't even try - I don't know where she came from  - but I don't think she was a convict and I do think we are going round in circles of increasing difficulty which may not be the answer!  It is getting too complicated.   The answer has got to be simpler - hasn't it   Having said that, carry on looking - but I'm going to stay simple I do believe, and stay with the family history until you all prove me wrong.   Talk about a cop out:
 I ask for your assistance then jump when the going gets hard - no that's not it!  It is just too complicated for my little brain -
 I didn't even walk to Sealers Cove to commune with the rocks there - they may have been able to deliver up some thoughts about John McNally, sealer of these shores, too!

Good to see you back on the job David!

Wiggy

 

[davclem]

Yes,you too, Wiggs

Did you miss the bit where the parents of a Catherine Rook born 1793 were married at Millbrook ( Hampshire)in 1792-  got to be worth a frisson or two

David

[majm]

Welcome back Wiggy,

Did you by any chance get a copy of that 1820 christening record for Thomas  ... I am curious as to the entry immediately before and immediately after it ...  I would expect to find a page full of entries  i.e. at least 12 different christenings recorded on the one page......., all possibly performed by Rev Knopwood, .... VDL was operating under NSW regulations in 1820, and parish records for christenings were meant to be "transmitted" on a quarterly basis to the "head office" parish ....

Also, Wiggy, If its only one entry on that one page,  do you know who provided (and when) that christening information to the Hobart Archives ....


Many Cheers,  JM

[Wiggy]

Whole page of people all christened by Rev Knopwood - its real - I didn't dream it! And yes I did get a copy!

Only a little frisson David!    Don't like the timing much - only when applied to Catharine Morrison - because that doesn't involve getting her into the colony!

Wiggy

[majm]

Hi all,

I've just checked one of my own forebears, born in Sydney NSW 1809, remembering that the mother was not married to the father when the child was born (they married when the child was a teenager  ,) ...  there are 20 names on the record from the parish register...  the page is around foolscap size and the details reading across the page are in the following order

Child's Christian name (names),  then Son (or Dau) of ...... (names the child's FATHER showing his first and last name and mother showing mother's first, middle and last name) followed by "born" and the day, month and year.  Also, written above the mother's names it says "Baptised" followed by the date (day, month, year).

When I then obtained the NSW BDM certificate of that Early Church Record, I got one A4 document, typed up, and it did NOT note the marital status of the child's parents .....  in fact it had less information that the parish records .... which were only supplied to the NSW BDM after its formation in the 1850's ....

I have other examples from those early penal times, but the one above is for a child born out of wedlock .... although there is NO mention that the mother was unmarried ...

PS, just reading your post, re whole page of people all christened by Rev Knopwood .... so please, who was name above and also name below .... could they have been acquaintances of Catharine, could there be clues to check .....

Cheers,  JM

[Wiggy]

Sorry, christened 18th Dec., born 14th Nov,  got it round the wrong way!

Name above: Eliza, born 27th Nov, daughter of William and Elizabeth, (?DEnnett or Demmatt - hard to read) married in Sydney, etc.

Below: Jane, born 11th Nov, daughter of John and Catharine Ann, Wood, married,  R Knopwood.

Both the above baptised on same day.

Wiggy

[majm]

Ta Wiggy,

If you have scanned it, perhaps you can save a second copy of that scan, then crop it to show the bit that's hard to read and attach the cropped bit here on this thread ... we can try to decipher it ....  Also, there's a whole board on RChat just for deciphering old handwriting 

In mean time I'll try to find out any other info about the names mentioned for those other services of that same day 

Cheers,

JM