Searching for origins of: MCNALLY, Catharine Christiana

[davclem]

Re Ann Ransom, adopted daughter of Catharine-

I have re-read" The Personal narrative of Martin Cash ". For some reason Wiggy wants Ann to be born 1817, while the Amos/Ann Cummings theory I have advanced ( which is simply a variation of Leo Stieglitz claim that Ann was the daughter of Amos/ Catharine) requires her to be born about November/December 1819.

However, Martin Cash, who spent a year at Killymoon in 1837 is quite clear "Her son, a young man of about 18 years of age , and an adopted daughter some years younger, constituted the family". Thomas born in 1820 would be about 18 in 1837, so Ann was born at least 1821 and by the sound of it possibly about 1824-25- so she couldn't be the daughter of Amos (who died in 1819) .

However we know (John Cummings Notice) that Ann Cummings absconded before 1819 and that McNally's wife ( presumed as Catherine of 1811 birth notice) was employed by the Cummings 1816-1817 at least, so the servant/companion fleeing with her mistress theory still holds as possible- just we take Ann Ransom out of the equation.

David

[majm]

Sorry Wiggy,

Would you be so kind as to look up the paper for Friday 27 November 1829 page 4, of the Colonial Times (Hobart, Tas. : 1828-1857) cause I want to know more about Catharine....  perhaps there's a description of the Royal Oak  even...

Umm, your LDS lass baptised 6 Jan 1790 in Ireland, a daughter of Henry and Alce McNally....  Ummm..... love herbs...

JM

[Wiggy]

Pride comes before  . . .  OK so I didn't find that one - thanks JM!  ( Too late now!!)

Wiggy

[Wiggy]

David,
I only want her to be born then because that's when the archives say she was born (and they are only on given info I know) - I don't think she was born after 1821 - so maybe there was another person living in the house as a daughter at the time of Martin Cash - (either that or Anne had been using that wonderful cream JM and I were talking about earlier which keeps you looking very young!)   
I am actually coming round to the 1819 scenario - I don't know who the adopted daughter of Martin Cash's diary was - just a youthful Anne?   She can't have been too much younger - she was married in 1840 - 3 years after Marin Cash was there, and he says Thomas was about 18 so . . .   Anne was supposed to be about 22 at marriage.

Wiggy

[majm]

Umm,

Child born Nov-Dec 1819 and another born in 1820 to same mother .... umm, not usually possible, particularly as both survive... umm, unless there was a wet-nurse employed...

But child born 1820, and then some time later, a younger child was adopted into the family.... yes that's much more likely........

And as Wiggy points out, there's that submitted LDS lass in Ireland in 1890 1790 oops, fixed now....

What age was given when Ann Ransom/McNally wed please ?  (Sorry, I see 22)

Umm, and the Royal Oak and the licencee and the Hermit's tales all very interesting to read in the papers....  The Widow, Catharine,  could well be that Irish lass !!! two suitors and a hint that The Hermit knows she was not necessarily a "legal" widow..., so perhaps Frederick also knew all about the tale as told by Prying Eyes...  Well we all know that those from the Emerald Isle are good upright and truthful people...

As Robyn quoted from Alice earlier on this thread, I add "now opening out like the largest telescope that ever was"

JM

[davclem]

Wiggy,
Oh keen and analytical brain- put finger on the flaw in the argument immediately- how could I have forgotten that Ann was  married in 1840 stating age as 22, therefore born c 1818- otherwise being born in (say) 1825 she would have been 15 at marriage.

So Martin Cash could not judge the age of young wommen? He lived there for a year for Heavens sake! and he had Bessy with him to put him right! Just another conundrum

David

[Wiggy]

JM,         (that was 1790 - not that anyone's counting)
See that was my argument last time this came round on the merry-go-round - two children in successive years - both at the back end of the year - so very short time between pregnancies - still, read the offspring lists in the family, and it did happen!

Don't know David - but Anne just doesn't gel does she?

[Wiggy]

She could just about have managed to be 22 in 1840 if born 1819 - just about  - maybe give herself one year!  But married in May and if the Thomas Amos theory holds, would have been born end of 1819!  You are right - it is a conundrum.
doesn't anyone like my 1790 Irish girl???      See what happens David - regression!  to do with no-one liking my small offering.

Wiggy

[majm]

OK,

So look at the birth for Thomas Junior, perhaps it was 1821 rather than 1820....  Martin Cash has Thomas at 18 in 1837 !!!  and if Ann was his sister, and took after her mother in looks, I am sure Ann would look quite young, regardless of whether she was 15 or 25 or inbetween 

That would put both children as being fathered by Thomas Ransom...   but they never married ... that impediment stopped them... and both Catharine and Thomas knew what it was even before the babies were born.... So what was it...


JM