Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Ghostwheel

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 9
Kerry / Re: "Upper" in townland parlance
« on: Tuesday 23 October 18 19:22 BST (UK)  »
I kind of like the idea that if you were navigating in a mountainous or hilly place, you'd look at the peaks.

My theory is that some of this terminology would have different meaning depending somewhat on the county.  With a place like Kerry or Wicklow being different from your generally flatter terrain.

For instance, there is a mountain in Scotland called Ben More. It is taller than any more Southern mountain in Britain.  There is also another Ben More in Scotland.  It is the highest one on the isle of Mull.

Kerry / Re: "Upper" in townland parlance
« on: Monday 22 October 18 16:45 BST (UK)  »
Lohert is definitely some type of townland.

I'm reading the old descriptions of the townlands circa, I believe, 1840s.  Tulligmore is described as having a large tract of bog about two-thirds its area, but mountains in the north.    Arable land consisting chiefly of mountain pasture.  Population then only 36.  Tulligbeg is described also as being mostly mountain pasture.  Population then only 147.

I guess they just used Lower Tullig informally, and if there were any living there, it wasn't enough for the surveyors to consider it a useful term or for the term to be used as a household address.  Perhaps, even nobody lived there.

I'm a bit confused with the meaning of beg and more.  Could that be derived from the relative heights of peaks or hills and not area? 

Kerry / Re: "Upper" in townland parlance
« on: Sunday 21 October 18 23:05 BST (UK)  »
It seems so odd that they would bother saying "Upper", since there is no apparent mention of a "Lower", and it doesn't seem very specific, by itself.

What's more, Tullig More and Tullig Beg both seem like moderately-sized townlands, if you think of them like addresses.  In 1901, there were 182 in More and 328 in Beg.  That seems like a lot to combine them both and find someone named John O'Brien or Mary O'Neill .   

I'm thinking maybe if someone's goat got loose in the swamp, then they might use the term Lower Tullig, but it is still inexplicable to me why they would tell the priest they were from Upper Tullig.

Kerry / Re: "Upper" in townland parlance
« on: Sunday 21 October 18 17:49 BST (UK)  »
If you look at the Killorglin Catholic Parish records in the 1800s, you often seen "Tullig Upper."

I think the term might still be is use.  Someone I know was visiting the area in 1983 and took a photo of an old house.  It is captioned "Upper Tullig."  This I am pretty sure was in Tullig More.  Meanwhile, I know a family on the 1901 census who lived in Tulligbeg, many of their births say "Upper Tullig ."

I don't see any Lower Tullig, but there is an Upper and Lower Cromane in the same parish on the Tithes.  Lower Cromane is not on  But there are Shannera and Glancuttaun versions of both.  From looking at the peaks on the map, I'd guess it generally means something to do with elevation in the context of Kerry.  Upper being higher.

It is odd that there is no Lower Tullig.  Maybe it could be bog or marsh that nobody lived in?

Okay, I definitely see a W, so I am going to assume East and West are just different parts of this same townland.  Tullig Beg is in the West and Tullig More to the East, Though I'm not sure if each direction refers to one specifically.  Assuming no moves between births, I've seen the term Upper used with both East and West.

Kerry / "Upper" in townland parlance
« on: Sunday 21 October 18 02:57 BST (UK)  »
What is the significance of the word "Upper", as in the case of Upper Tullig, Killorglin Parish, Co. Kerry?

Is it meant to distinguish it from other Tulligs in nearby parishes?  Or does it have something to do with the terrain?

What confuses me about it is there is a Tulligbeg and a Tulligmore.  Next to each other, of course.  Both, or at least parts of both, are described as "Upper."

If I type in "Upper Tullig", I only seem to get Killorglin Parish.

I believe I have also heard the term "Upper Tullig East."  Any idea if that would be considered the eastern part of Tullig, or does it mean the Eastern Tullig?

Ireland / Re: Widower: how long to remarry?
« on: Sunday 21 October 18 02:36 BST (UK)  »
Thanks, everyone!  I appreciate the responses.

I was considering a gap of 25 months between the last child of the first marriage and the first of the second.  No other clues really, except for the baptisms.  I wasn't sure if that was too short a time, but now that I've heard these responses, it seems likely to me that it was the same father, and that he remarried, after his first wife died.

Ireland / Widower: how long to remarry?
« on: Monday 15 October 18 00:27 BST (UK)  »
I'm wondering if anyone has any known cases of a widower with children remarrying in the 1800s in Ireland, preferably a Catholic.  How long did it take, from the death of the first wife to the second marriage?

I'm afraid I myself don't have any definitely known examples to contribute.

Bonus question: can a sibling be a baptism sponsor (for the baptism of his or her sibling)?

Second bonus: what would the minimum age be for a baptism sponsor?  I know I have definitely seen a 12.  But I'm wondering if someone who was 11 could be one.

Ireland / Re: "Relative" on the census
« on: Saturday 21 April 18 19:32 BST (UK)  »

In my personal philosophy, impressions and guesswork are very important.  You need them to come up with hunches, that can possibly be tested.  That was why I was soliciting impressions, to hone my hunches.

I'm sure, what I've said has struck you as using a dousing rod.  But in my experience, it really helps.  Studying the map, even the mountains and looking at very lateral names - people I wasn't directly interested in, that couldn't be connected on a tree - has helped me enormously, not once, but twice.  In Ireland, you need out of the box approaches.

In one instance, my starting point was actually this same "relative."  Her mother was born quite close to where one of my G grandfathers was born.  My G grandparents had married in the US.  They were from different parishes and I hadn't even conceived of the idea that they had known each other in Ireland.  This changed all that.  It changed my idea of scale and direction.  It helped me find 2 of my GG grandmothers who had extremely common names, and who had almost zero clues associated with them.  Me finding them so close together - associated with the same townland and knowing that they had the same surname was its own check,  Because I realized that they were related, though the paper record didn't go far back enough to say how.

No one searching for just one name, or just in one line, would have ever found that.  It was on nobody's tree, and I'm sure I was the first person to figure it out, and likely the only one who would have ever figured it out.  Because no one else would have had the patience or the right clue. 

And, it all began with this same unknown "relative", and ended with two other people who were unknown relatives to each other.  My closing thought: "relative" or "cousin" should never be disregarded in Ireland.  It may be a snipe hunt, but it might surprise you and turn out to be profitable, even if you can't trace it.

Ireland / Re: "Relative" on the census
« on: Saturday 21 April 18 18:51 BST (UK)  »
Heywood, that is an interesting perspective.  I had never thought that: there is a level of kin beyond knowledge.  For instance, sometimes rarer first names are associated with surnames.  if you were living in the same parish with another fellow who had the same name as you, you'd probably consider him kin.

Sinann, that is quite a lifelike picture you paint.  If you have secretly built some time machine in your garage, I hope you don't throw anything out of whack in one my parishes.  Or should I even say counties and provinces?  Just how far are you going back?!  Maybe, next time hop to Ming-era China to be on the safe side?

Aghadowey, that is really a funny line about not saying anything.  i'm surprised I never heard it in a movie.  Thinking about it, I'm not too sure how far back people could remember.  My own aunt had some really mistaken impressions about her aunts, thinking some were half-sisters, because her grandfather was a widower who had remarried.  I can't decide, if she was told a story or not, as the first birth was a bit early.  But I've always thought of that as Americans quickly forgetting most kin.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 9