Do these records fit together?

[Sinann]

I've been puzzling over this for a while now and would love some opinions please.

The cast:
Two Fathers: Patrick Sweeney and Gordon Neill
The couple: Peter Sweeney and Mary Neill
1st child: Mary Sweeney
9th child: Margaret Sweeney and her husband Patrick Rourke.

I know the farm Margaret grew up on in Barretstown so I decided to look at Griffiths Valuation to find Peter Sweeny’s father’s name. Knowing the exact spot helped as the name I found there was Patrick Sweeny. Two of the Sweeney girls had their names spelt the same way by the Landlord on the 1901 Census so that seems reasonable.

I than found a marriage on FamilySearch
Groom's Name: Peter Sweeny
Bride's Name: Mary Neill
Marriage Date: 20 Jan 1864
Marriage Place: 897,Carragh,Kildare,Ireland
Groom's Father's Name: Patrick Sweeny
Bride's Father's Name: Gordon Neill

And on Roots Ireland
20 Jan 1864
Caragh
Peter Sweeney
Barretstown
Mary Neill
Fathers.  Sweeney and Neill
Witnesses. Thomas Keogh and Bridget Moore

They are clearly a match but it’s not the year I expected so I looked for the birth of their first child Mary and found

On RootsIreland
27 March 1864
Caragh
Mary Sweeny
Barretstown
Parents, Peter Sweeny and Mary Neale
Sponsors, Thomas Kehoe and Mary Moore

The spelling of the name Neale is the first problem also as you can see this birth is only two months after the marriage which is cutting it very close, my Mary Sweeney survived so I don’t think she was months premature, back then you didn’t survive unless you were close to full term but is it the same set of parents as the marriage above?
The almost match of the male witness and sponsor and the matching surname of the female witness and sponsor plus the correct address make me think it is, but than again maybe not.
(Mary married a Kelly but died young a death record on FamilySearch for a Mary Kelly in the right area and year estimates the date of birth as 1864.)

Next hitch.
In 1911 Mary Sweeney wasn’t at home on Census night.
The only Mary Sweeney born in Kildare that I could find is with Patrick and Margaret (Sweeney) Rourke. This would make sense as Margaret was due her third child so she would no doubt liked to have had her mother there to help with the birth and her two other children. The problem is Patrick has not put Mary Sweeney down as his Mother in Law; she is down as a Visitor.
Secondly Mary claims to be married 49 years which would put her marriage in 1862. I can understand her lying by a year but why two?
She may just have got flustered by the question or maybe Margaret answered for her and got it wrong, she wouldn’t have known the’ truth’ anyway.
Either way it is very annoying.

What do you think have I just got the wrong marriage records or has Mary (understandably) lied in 1911? Or have I the incorrect birth record, their second child wasn't born until 1866 so Mary could have been born later than 1864.
It would be great to get back another generation but I’m not happy thinking Patrick and Gordon are my g g grandfathers just yet.
Thanks for reading this far any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

[myluck!]

A few comments on this family and research in general

If your records are pre1900 accept that there will be spelling variations e.g. Neal & Neill; most people were illiterate and someone else wrote their details on forms, this leads to many variations of the same names based on accents, locations, etc.

The same can be said of ages, years of marriage, etc. these can be out by several years when people had nothing to officially use. When searching the records you can find a range of 10 years for dates of birth, marriage, and so on; most interesting is when you find dates of baptism before the official date of birth!! This can arise where the family was avoiding a fine for a late notification and they gave a date within three months of the date they were regisitering the birth, whereas the church would have recorded the actual date of baptism in their books!! Makes for difficult researching sometimes.

Seeing as Family Search and Roots Ireland are giving the same year for the marriage of Peter Sweeney & Mary Neil I would accept there is no error in the transcript; there may be for Mary's birth or indeed it may be correct!
If you could access the original church marriage record there may be a note referring to the status of the marriage (e.g. dispensation or otherwise) or the original baptism record to see if the year was correct.

Many people were listed on census returns as visitors when they were in fact relatives; I have found that in-laws and step-children in particular were not seen as "related to the head"; If your Mary Sweeney listed with the Rourkes is the correct age, shown as married, etc and in other ways matches I would be happy to keep her a very strong possiblity

I hope this helps you think it through a little more

[alpinecottage]

I agree with myluck.  I think the discrepencies you have mentioned are minor. In the 19th century, people did not celebrate birthdays and anniversaries like we do now and they were not forever filling in forms which asked for birthdates as we do now.   In fact, I would be delighted if I could find such a coherent timeline for my Irish ancestors ~ even the birth of my grandfather about 1880 does not seem to have been registered!

[Sinann]

Thank you both, one does so much if but and maybes looking at these records it's great to get an outside view.
I have some certs to order and will include Peter and Mary's marriage cert hopfully I'll get the mothers names and who knows where that could lead.
I think I'm happy I have the right people, I just needed someone else to say it for me  I think I'll quote you both a bit when showing the tree to the rest of the family, you explain the idiosyncrasys of family records very wel

[alpinecottage]

I don't think the marriage cert from 1864 will include the mothers' names, though I may be wrong.  I think your best hope for one more generation back is the parish records, possibly Mary and Peter's baptismal records and those of their siblings.  You may then be able to find their parents' weddings, but you'd be very lucky to find much more.  There are hardly any pre or early1800 parish records for Ireland, sadly - records were just not kept.

[Elwyn Soutter]

I don't think the marriage cert from 1864 will include the mothers' names, though I may be wrong. 

That's correct. Irish marriage certs only have the fathers names.

[Sinann]

That was my fear, I've looked for Peter and Mary's baptismal records but no luck yet, I'll just have to wait and see. I won't be complaining I never expected to get this far back.

[Nicki2014]

Hi Sinann, my grandfather was a Sweeney from the same area his father is buried in caragh peter? Just wondering could it be the same family?

[Sinann]

My great grandfather Peter is buried in near-by Barretstown, he didn't call any of his sons Peter. His son Andrew is buried in Caragh, he had a son Peter who is also buried in Caragh but he would be too late for yours.
What sort of dates have you got for your Peter and do you know his wife's name?
Mine was born 1839 died 1923.
There are a good few Sweeneys in Caragh I think.