Searching for origins of: MCNALLY, Catharine Christiana

[majm]

Umm,

Gov Arthur arrived VDL 1824, and his Calvinist beliefs may well have influenced his re-visiting of the annual licences for publicans. 

As I understand it, Green Ponds would have been "out of sight" of the regulars in Hobart Town, thus a Country Licence was available for Thomas Ransom.   

VDL became a separate colony in 1825, so Gov Arthur would have been in a position to put in place his own interpretations and/or regulations for administraton of Licquor Licences etc.   What were the regulations BEFORE Gov Arthur's administration took over, and also what Bigge's reports said about the regulations when he inspected VDL in circa Feb - March 1820.   

I have just re-read Thomas Ransom's will ONLINE, and he makes no attempt to explain his relationship to Catharine Christina McNally or to "her son" Thomas McNally.  I note that this will was found by C C 22 November 1829, ie during her courtship with Von S.   Also,  there's no mention of "her daughter" Ann Ransom.    If Thomas Ransom had a wife surely that wife ought to have benefited ....  That's a very long delay between Thomas Ransom dying and Catharine finding his Will.  Long enough for Catharine to have waited to see if anyone made a claim on Thomas' considerable estate before finding the will ....

I agree with Robyn, I don't see that Thomas' English marriage would have been the impediment of eleven years standing in that letter to Gov Arthur.  If the wife was in Australia, then she would have made a claim on that estate.... or if she preceded Thomas, surely there would have been a RANSOM = McNALLY marriage......   

PS I am of the opinion that the brand C N is "N" for NALLY, Mc;  I would not expect to see it as C M.

The Points Robyn makes about the impediment (1, power of the law,; 2 known to officials and prying eyes but NOT in the public domain and 3 began in 1814 are worth following up. 

Wiggy, can you get hold of the document that the transcript was based on ?

Cheers,  JM

[Wiggy]

What Transcript JM? 

Re the will,    Catharine proved the will in November - I know from proving my own fathers will that it takes a long time - she knew the will was there - he made it only 6 days before his death.   I have the will and the signature of Mr Pedder who proved it!   Do you use 'Finding' in the sense of proving??  I've not heard it said like that before.

Going on holidays now folks - you may find whatever you can in the next week or so!!

Wiggy

[majm]

Hi Wiggy,

Re "Transcript" ... as in the letter from Thomas to Gov Arthur, and the "11" years... can you get the original document (or a copy of the original) that your copy of the transcript was transcribed from 

Re "Finding" Thomas' will.   Catharine did not lodge the will for its proving until 22 November 1829.  Thomas had been dead for near ten months.  At least that's how I understand the notation on the lower section of page 2 of the online record.  The following is my transcription of the paragraph that to me MAY (and of course may not) mean she did not "find" (locate) the will for many months.

This will was proved by Catharine Christina McNally the Executrix therein named on Friday 22 November One thousand Eight hundred and Twenty-nine before His Honor Chief Justice Pedder. And probate was granted to the said Executrix, hearing date the 27th day of November aforesaid.

That is, Catharine sought to have the will proved on 22 Nov, and the legal system took 3 working days to grant her request.   I'm amazed that she did NOT seek to have it proved  within the weeks after Thomas died.   I seem to recall that she had legal issues regarding taking over Thomas' licence ... I would have expected her to use the granting of Probate as evidence of her entitlement to continue to operate a public house.  It seems to me that what happened is vice versa.   So I am offering the suggestion that the IMPEDIMENT of 11 years standing ie of 1814, may well be a VDL  marriage of Thomas to someone other than Catharine, and that Catharine waited to see if anyone stepped forward before "finding" this will during her own courtship by Fred Von S.



Enjoy your Holidays.

Cheers,  JM

[Wiggy]

 oh that transcript!  Have sent for and am awaiting copy of letters from AOT.  Should be here sooner or later!

Well, I took my father's will to be proved and that was after I'd done all the carry on first - OK so there were less people around in 1829 but Thomas had a lot of property.   (In my case the proving took only a few days - the getting everything ready first took months, and he didn't have much property to worry about!- I am just judging from my own experience as I did it all myself.)   I dunno - that's just how I read it.

The lease for the inn was transferred to Catharine/Christina on 21 March 1829 - so no trouble there apparently.

Cheers!

Wiggy

[regross]

Wiggy and others,
 Had a PM from Wiggy and said I would post my respnse to it here for your feed back:

What if CC McN was a camp follower of some regiment!   

When you think about armies and their camp followers in Napoleonic time (which is what we are talking about), the C.F. never rate a name - but they are there - they are just invisible and nameless, there for the use of . . .!

WHAT IF Catherine arrived in Hobart as one such and set up a tavern for the cheer of the regiment - then she gets mighty tired of that life and when this nice older guy puts up in her tavern, she and he hit if off - so to speak.  He in need of a good woman and stability - she in need of stability and ONE good man!

It is quite plausible re her being a camp follower and this would tie in with her having been in the Carribean and as you say and as I know from my own research they were recorded as numbers not individuals.

However re her having a pub  I am not so sure, you would expect to find some references to her establishment in the papers and govt records at the very least.

She could well have been left behind after having had a child/miscarriage/other illness and not being well enough to travel on with the regiment. She may well have been married (wives were still just numbers in the records as I have seen  in a copy of one shipping manifest  that I  have.

"x" wives and children

So 1814 could be the date that her husbands regiment moved on from either Port Jackson, Norfolk Island or Hobart leaving her behind. Therefore she is not free to wed. Neither she nor Thomas have any control over the event and they can do nothing to change their situations.

Steiglitz may well not have known about her earlier marriage etc and so she felt free to marry him and there was no public outcry at that time, the "prying eyes" and govt officals who knew the impediment must have been back in England again with their regiments or having served out the time of their postings.

So two theroies to be worked over 

RObyn

[davclem]

Re wiggy's post 287- "the obstacle which has been the occasion of the licences being suspended  has existed nearly 11 years  "

So, in 1814,something happened to prevent Thomas and Catharine getting married between 1814-1825, and subsequently between 1825-1829, but that 'obstacle' did not prevent Catharine from marrying  FL Stiiegltz in 1830.

Catharine used the name McNally in all legal documents- birth of Thomas 1820, will of Thomas 1829 and marriage to Fred in 1830- she was either born McNally or married a McNally .

If she married a McNally, and that was the obstacle of 11 years, she married him in 1814, and they must have seperated between 1814-1819( when she is the 'wife' of Thomas Ransom in the 1819 Muster in VDL).She does not appear in any VDL records between 1814-1819, suggesting she only reached Hobart, as Mcnally ( either married or maiden name), in 1819, and was not cohabiting with Thomas 1814-1819.

The obstacle ceased by 1830- either McNally(if there was a husband McNally) died in 1829, or the obstacle was with Thomas who died in 1829. Thomas left Norfolk Island and went to VDL in 1814-did he get married in the time he spent in Sydney in 1814 waiting to go to VDL, and did he desert his new wife? Was Thomas the obstacle?

As a different issue and just to introduce another hare, remembering Jane Spencer (nee Smith) in 1825 , how about SPENCER, Ann. Per "Maria", 1818 Sep 26,  convict transhipped from the "Maria" to the "Elizabeth Henrietta" and forwarded to Hobart; with child (Reel 6006; 4/3499 p.89).

David

[majm]

Hi there,

Re that obstacle dating from circa 1814.

Perhaps details of  that obstacle were contained in a letter that arrived in Sydney in Feb 1814     There's a notice in the Sydney Gazette of Feb 19, 1814 from the Post Master re letters awaiting collection from several vessels for (among others) Mr. Thomas Ransom ....


Re the VDL Muster of 1819 where Thomas is shown to have a wife. 

That record really does not confirm that the wife was Wiggy's Catharine, it is simply convenient to presume it would be Catharine as it perhaps "fits" the possible scenerio!  I again note that Thomas' will makes no provision for Catharine's daughter, and that the will refers to Catharine's son as "her son" .... NOT as "my son"....    

I seem to recall that the birth record for Thomas McNally (son of Catharine) is only a submitted record.... Is it possible to find out WHEN it was first submitted and if there is any independent confirmation of those details.... 

Cheers,

JM

[davclem]

JM,

Good point about the letter awaiting Thomas in 1814- we are never going to know the contents, but a slim circumstancial possible indication that the obstacle might have been with Thomas, not Catharine.

I am  open  to the suggestion that Thomas 1820 is not the son of Thomas 1741, but have  believed on  the balance of probability  that the 1819 wife is Catharine- the implications of the 1825 issue is that of a long association between them, and not just a couple of yearsor so.

 However,  (Wiggy) , do we have any record that links Thomas Ransom with Catharine McNally in the Joiners Arms (No 1 Murray Street per Jane Spencer records) before 1823 ( donating to the Wesleyans, wasn't it) by either linking their names in the same record or referring to her as Mrs Ransom.

It would certainly reflect better on Catharine (?) if she had Thomas McNally1820 before being   involved in a personal relationship with Thomas Ransom  ( even if she was working for /with him before that), than if she were the wife in 1819 but had Thomas 1820 by an unknown father- who was obviously not a McNally or the father would have been named on the registration. Pity Brady didn't arrive early in 1820!!

When did "Mrs Ransom' first appear in the record?

David
 

[regross]

I wonder

Did Thomas Ransom's wife arrive in the colonies following the letter in 1814

She may well have come out and I don't think that we have checked to see if she did or even if she is in the musters.

Fanatasy here but could Catharine really have been his daughter from that marriage

Obvious impediment to their marriage which was absolved by his death.  We have no proof on teh status of their relationship do we   This brings us back to the fact that Thomas McNally later Ransom may infact have been his grandchild and as been hinted at before that Ann was an adopted child.

I am ready to be shot down in flames by all and sundry.

Robyn