RootsChat.Com
Ireland (Historical Counties) => Ireland => Wicklow => Topic started by: ciaranob on Friday 02 February 18 16:39 GMT (UK)
-
Hi - new arrival here and seriously challenged finding info on my Great Great Grandfather - any ideas/advice greatly appreciated on how to dig deeper.
So here is what I have on this specific request:
- Arthur and Elizabeth Byrne in 1901 Census residing in House 1, Ballinglen, Co. Wicklow are my great grandfather and mother.
- Arthur died in 1907 (from a probate record recording his death in Ballinglen and with him leaving funds for Patrick J. Byrne (Builder) his eldest son)
- They had 6 children, 2 of whom were living in Ballinglen House 1 in 1901, Denis (later emigrated to NZ) and Arthur
- Their eldest son Patrick who was working in Newbridge in 1901 as a carpenter aged 20 and is recorded at that location (boarding in a house whose owner's daughter he later married!)
- His daughters Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne I am trying to track down - not much progress to date (Anne apparently was re-named Sister Thaddeus and emigrated to Texas).
So on the weak assumption that perhaps Arthur's parents were also from the area I found a Charles Byrne and wife Anne (nee Murphy? - poorly written record) in parish baptismal records with their son Arthur - the only Arthur baptized in records for the general area in 1848, the birth date of Arthur my grandfather.
So to my request for help in trying to validate that Charles might be the father of Arthur and if not, any ideas on tracing Charles and Anne Byrne, as to date I have had no lucky x-referencingnames/locations in the National Archives etc. but could very easily be missing something!!
Thanks in advance, C.
-
It is always better to include links to things in posts....
Do you have links to them on census??
-
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1901/Wicklow/Ballinglen/Ballinglen/1819089/
-
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1901/Wicklow/Ballinglen/Ballinglen/1819089/
-
So...
She is 40 in 1901!!
Denis is 16.
So now there is an approximate year for Marriage as her age is known!
-
To be clear, I am looking into the father/mother of Arthur Byrne - I provided all the info I have on Arthur and Elizabeth which of course is then straightforward to locate in the 1901 census.
I may have Arthur's baptism record (by no means at all verified) in Kilvaney Parish as the only 1848 Arthur born in that area in 1848 - parents on that record appear to be a Charles Byrne and an Anne nee Murphy possibly) - I will find and post the link to that too once I get a mo!
Cheers, C.
-
To be clear, I am looking into the father/mother of Arthur Byrne - I provided all the info I have on Arthur and Elizabeth which of course is then straightforward to locate in the 1901 census.
So he is 53!!
Birth won't be on Civil Reg!
Yes you are looking for his father.....so now know approximately when he married to look at Marriage Cert!!
-
Yes indeed re marriage cert and of course I dug into locating that but to date no luck - found one very similar Arthur and Elizabeth but married in 1871 and too recent (based on known age of their kids)
-
Marriage results for Arthur Byrne from 1880 to 1885
Displaying results 1 - 5 of 5. http://www.rootschat.com/links/01lgn/
-
Indeed - no Elizabeth - I have a sense of deja vu here :)! We are quite confident on Elizabeth being correct.
-
This is the record that came close but Elizabeth clearly would have been way too young so doesn't match
-
Indeed - no Elizabeth - I have a sense of deja vu here :)! We are quite confident on Elizabeth being correct.
What is on the Birth certs for the children?? Mother??
-
Yes, Arthur is the son of Arthur Byrne and Elizabeth Byrne, nee Byrne
-
UPDATE - please note typo in screenshot - should be 1848 not 1846!
Only records I have to date in respect Arthur and Elizabeth Byrne is what I have found in the 1901 census and a probate record listing Arthur's death in 1907 - could not even find Elizabeth in 1911 census and suspect she may have either remarried or perhaps even emigrated - no idea - so also a dead end so far. To compound things I also to date have no anecdotal info from any relatives either. The candidate baptismal record for Arthur listing Charles and Anne as parents is highly speculative, bit of a shot in the dark to assume his parents were also local but at least a possible lead - attached a screenshot of this.
-
Arthur BYRNE m Elizabeth BYRNE on Oct 19 1871 in Killaveney
according to church records LINK (https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000633994#page/117/mode/1up)
LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1871/11362/8171616.pdf) to civil records
Father of Arthur is Hugh BYRNE a farmer; his age is 25 implying born 1846
Father of Elizabeth is Denis BYRNE a farmer; her age 23 implying born 1848
This would also imply the 1901 census ages are "a little" out which is not unusual
Patrick b April 25 1879
Denis b Nov 01 1883
Arthur b May 31 1885
-
Finding him is easy because we now know his age in 1901.
-
Not sure this is likely i.e. Arthur (married to Elizabeth) is 53 in 1901 (age also is consistent with 1907 death probate record), hence born in 1848 so presumably very unlikely Hugh Byrne would be his father as this Hugh Byrne was born 1846.
-
only 2 on census 1911
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Dublin/Wood_Quay__part_of_/Costello_s_Cottages/79790/
but she had 11 children
or
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Wicklow/Arklow_Rural/Ballinasilloge/894028/
-
Please see previous post above where i had already located this possibility - however this is impossible as Elizabeth would have been 10 years old in 1871 (1901 census has Elizabeth married to Arthur as 40 yrs old). We also have a hard date of Patrick their son as born in 1881 - he was living in Newbridge at the time (lots of other corroborating evidence that this was him).
Arthur BYRNE m Elizabeth BYRNE on Oct 19 1871 in Killaveney
according to church records LINK (https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000633994#page/117/mode/1up)
LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1871/11362/8171616.pdf) to civil records
Father of Arthur is Hugh BYRNE a farmer; his age is 25 implying born 1846
Father of Elizabeth is Denis BYRNE a farmer; her age 23 implying born 1848
This would also imply the 1901 census ages are "a little" out which is not unusual
Patrick b April 25 1879
Denis b Nov 01 1883
Arthur b May 31 1885
-
Please see previous post above where i had already located this possibility - however this is impossible as Elizabeth would have been 10 years old in 1871 (1901 census has Elizabeth married to Arthur as 40 yrs old). We also have a hard date of Patrick their son as born in 1881 - he was living in Newbridge at the time (lots of other corroborating evidence that this was him).
Arthur BYRNE m Elizabeth BYRNE on Oct 19 1871 in Killaveney
according to church records LINK (https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000633994#page/117/mode/1up)
LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1871/11362/8171616.pdf) to civil records
Father of Arthur is Hugh BYRNE a farmer; his age is 25 implying born 1846
Father of Elizabeth is Denis BYRNE a farmer; her age 23 implying born 1848
This would also imply the 1901 census ages are "a little" out which is not unusual
Patrick b April 25 1879
Denis b Nov 01 1883
Arthur b May 31 1885
Did you not see this???
-
Indeed - tough to know re the first and no way from that record to validate, right? Unfortunately also gets us no further with Arthur's candidates parents - random searches of Charles Byrne has yielded sod all too to date (that is verifiable as a hard link to Arthur) - only tantalizing piece is the baptismal record have from Kilvaney Parish.
-
Arthur and Elizabeth's eldest son (my grandfather) was born in 1881.
Please see previous post above where i had already located this possibility - however this is impossible as Elizabeth would have been 10 years old in 1871 (1901 census has Elizabeth married to Arthur as 40 yrs old). We also have a hard date of Patrick their son as born in 1881 - he was living in Newbridge at the time (lots of other corroborating evidence that this was him).
Arthur BYRNE m Elizabeth BYRNE on Oct 19 1871 in Killaveney
according to church records LINK (https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000633994#page/117/mode/1up)
LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1871/11362/8171616.pdf) to civil records
Father of Arthur is Hugh BYRNE a farmer; his age is 25 implying born 1846
Father of Elizabeth is Denis BYRNE a farmer; her age 23 implying born 1848
This would also imply the 1901 census ages are "a little" out which is not unusual
Patrick b April 25 1879
Denis b Nov 01 1883
Arthur b May 31 1885
Did you not see this???
-
Ballymanus borders Ballinglen to the south
Remembering that BYRNE is a very common name it is always wise to double check things however as you can see on the marriage record in 1871 Arthur made his mark X rather than write so his literacy was low; this can lead to ages being distorted on records. The earlier in life you find a record the more accurate you can expect it to be.
Also this couple have more than six children
LINK (https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000633692#page/1/mode/1up) to baptism register
Joseph bap Oct 12 1871
Laurence bap May 1872
Hugh bap Mar 06 1876
Maria bap Sep 06 1877
Patrick b Apr 25 1879
Anne bap Mar 24 1882
Denis b Nov 01 1883
Arthur b May 31 1885
Margaret - not found
Elizabeth - not found
I cannot find any reference to the name Charles but the two father's names from the marriage record (Hugh and Denis) are among the children
-
Baptism of Art BYRNE
s/o Hugh BYRNE and Margaret KEEGAN on Mar 31 1846 in Killaveney
LINK (https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000633994#page/23/mode/1up) to baptism
address given as Ballymanus
(six from bottom on left page)
-
My grandmother (daughter of Patrick Byrne the son of Arthur and Elizabeth) is still alive and from her we know for certain that Patrick was born in Ballinglen and that his brothers were Arthur and Denis and sisters were Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne. I have census, marriage and death records for Patrick that all validate his age at multiple stages which was 20 in 1901 hence born 1881. The link you are pointing me too I had also reviewed and this record simply does not seem to match up on multiple fronts so improbable at best. By contrast the Arthur and Elizabeth record on the 1901 census in Ballinglen appears spot on in respect ages of youngest sons and fact that older children had already moved on.
Ballymanus borders Ballinglen to the south
Remembering that BYRNE is a very common name it is always wise to double check things however as you can see on the marriage record in 1871 Arthur made his mark X rather than write so his literacy was low; this can lead to ages being distorted on records. The earlier in life you find a record the more accurate you can expect it to be.
Also this couple have more than six children
LINK (https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000633692#page/1/mode/1up) to baptism register
Joseph bap Oct 12 1871
Laurence bap May 1872
Hugh bap Mar 06 1876
Maria bap Sep 06 1877
Patrick b Apr 25 1879
Anne bap Mar 24 1882
Denis b Nov 01 1883
Arthur b May 31 1885
Margaret - not found
Elizabeth - not found
I cannot find any reference to the name Charles but the two father's names from the marriage record (Hugh and Denis) are among the children
-
I cannot find another BYRNE family with a combination of parents Arthur and Elizabeth with children, Denis, Arthur and Patrick
Having the children's ages correct on the census is more probable as I mentioned before that the younger you were the more accurate the recorded age
It is wonderful to have family to give you information but sometimes it can become distorted or inaccurate in being retold - we can never by trully confident of information until we have records to prove it.
I would suggest you keep a note of this family and not rule it out completely
Ballinglen/Ballymanus border each other - do you the exact location of their house? it may have been close to the border
-
Thanks for your input - very much appreciated.
For ref this is the family link to Arthur and Elizabeth as previously posted:
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1901/Wicklow/Ballinglen/Ballinglen/1819089/
Patrick, their eldest son, was 20 years old and living as a boarder in Newbridge, Co. Kildare working as a carpenter (his verified trade through multiple sources) - have high confidence that this is him and thus of course Patrick would not be recorded on the 1901 census as living with his parents. Ditto for his sisters who had also would have left home by that stage (all in their 20's), thus leaving only Denis and Arthur as the only remaining children recorded in Ballinglen with parents Arthur and Elizabeth.
I cannot find another BYRNE family with a combination of parents Arthur and Elizabeth with children, Denis, Arthur and Patrick
Having the children's ages correct on the census is more probable as I mentioned before that the younger you were the more accurate the recorded age
It is wonderful to have family to give you information but sometimes it can become distorted or inaccurate in being retold - we can never by trully confident of information until we have records to prove it.
I would suggest you keep a note of this family and not rule it out completely
Ballinglen/Ballymanus border each other - do you the exact location of their house? it may have been close to the border
-
My grandmother (daughter of Patrick Byrne the son of Arthur and Elizabeth) is still alive and from her we know for certain that Patrick was born in Ballinglen and that his brothers were Arthur and Denis and sisters were Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne. I have census, marriage and death records for Patrick that all validate his age which was 20 in 1901 hence born 1881.
No he wasn't!!
Born April 1879!!
-
I don't doubt that you have found the correct Patrick in Kildare and family in Ballinglen
but I wonder why you are adamant to discount the births that match them
Patrick 1879 LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1879/02921/2070314.pdf) would make him 21 almost 22 on the date of the census which he may not have filled in; the family he stayed with could have given the information and said about 20
Denis 1883 LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1883/02715/1999315.pdf) which makes him 17 at the date of the census
Arthur 1885 LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1885/02649/1976848.pdf) which makes him 15 at the date of the census
All show parents as Arthur BYRNE and Elizabeth nee BYRNE which ties to previously given information
-
I don't doubt that you have found the correct Patrick in Kildare and family in Ballinglen
but I wonder why you are adamant to discount the births that match them
Patrick 1879 LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1879/02921/2070314.pdf) would make him 21 almost 22 on the date of the census which he may not have filled in; the family he stayed with could have given the information and said about 20
Denis 1883 LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1883/02715/1999315.pdf) which makes him 17 at the date of the census
Arthur 1885 LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1885/02649/1976848.pdf) which makes him 15 at the date of the census
All show parents as Arthur BYRNE and Elizabeth nee BYRNE which ties to previously given information
It is there in the post above in Black and White!!
-
.
.
-
Don't know how to spell it out more clearly, but you do not appear to be reading my prior responses - these are two different families with Arthur and Elizabeth as parents, one in Ballymanus and one in Ballinglen with different children some with overlapping names - if you read my input you will see that this is simply NOT the same son Patrick. I are 100% positive as to Patrick's age (4 different sources at different ages and all agree) and whilst you keep promoting this other family and their son, I would ask you to read back through the points previously made. Don't mean to be be ungrateful and do appreciate your time.
My grandmother (daughter of Patrick Byrne the son of Arthur and Elizabeth) is still alive and from her we know for certain that Patrick was born in Ballinglen and that his brothers were Arthur and Denis and sisters were Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne. I have census, marriage and death records for Patrick that all validate his age which was 20 in 1901 hence born 1881.
No he wasn't!!
Born April 1879!!
-
Don't know how to spell it out more clearly, but you do not appear to be reading my prior responses - these are two different families with Arthur and Elizabeth as parents, one in Ballymanus and one in Ballinglen with different children some with overlapping names - if you read my input you will see that this is simply NOT the same son Patrick. I are 100% positive as to Patrick's age (4 different sources at different ages and all agree) and whilst you keep promoting this other family and their son, I would ask you to read back through the points previously made. Don't mean to be be ungrateful and do appreciate your time.
My grandmother (daughter of Patrick Byrne the son of Arthur and Elizabeth) is still alive and from her we know for certain that Patrick was born in Ballinglen and that his brothers were Arthur and Denis and sisters were Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne. I have census, marriage and death records for Patrick that all validate his age which was 20 in 1901 hence born 1881.
No he wasn't!!
Born April 1879!!
Why don't you post the Certs for daughters Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne?? See what their Certs say....
-
Perhaps this helps in understanding why I believe that we are discussing two separate couples i.e. why the 1871 marriage record of an Arthur and Elizabeth (Ballymanus) cannot be the same as my confirmed Arthur and Elizabeth (Ballinglen) in the 1901 census:
Elizabeth Byrne in the 1901 census in Ballinglen is 40 years old - thus born in 1861.
If you want to make these 2 couples actually the same couple (despite having different children!), then you are saying that Elizabeth was born 1861 and married 1871 at age 10! Even arguing for some age error this is simply improbable at best.
PS: again as mentioned previously, I do not as yet have certificates on the sisters - my grandmother (living) does recall them all and provided their names.
Don't know how to spell it out more clearly, but you do not appear to be reading my prior responses - these are two different families with Arthur and Elizabeth as parents, one in Ballymanus and one in Ballinglen with different children some with overlapping names - if you read my input you will see that this is simply NOT the same son Patrick. I are 100% positive as to Patrick's age (4 different sources at different ages and all agree) and whilst you keep promoting this other family and their son, I would ask you to read back through the points previously made. Don't mean to be be ungrateful and do appreciate your time.
My grandmother (daughter of Patrick Byrne the son of Arthur and Elizabeth) is still alive and from her we know for certain that Patrick was born in Ballinglen and that his brothers were Arthur and Denis and sisters were Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne. I have census, marriage and death records for Patrick that all validate his age which was 20 in 1901 hence born 1881.
No he wasn't!!
Born April 1879!!
Why don't you post the Certs for daughters Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne?? See what their Certs say....
-
- Arthur died in 1907 (from a probate record recording his death in Ballinglen....
.....could not even find Elizabeth in 1911 census and suspect she may have either remarried or perhaps even emigrated - no idea - so also a dead end so far.
Arthur was already a widower when he died.
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1907/05532/4560823.pdf
Elizabeth's death in 1905:
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1905/05595/4572769.pdf
Her age appears to be problematic for her family.
Debra :)
-
- Arthur died in 1907 (from a probate record recording his death in Ballinglen....
.....could not even find Elizabeth in 1911 census and suspect she may have either remarried or perhaps even emigrated - no idea - so also a dead end so far.
Arthur was already a widower when he died.
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1907/05532/4560823.pdf
Elizabeth's death in 1905:
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1905/05595/4572769.pdf
Her age appears to be problematic for her family.
Debra :)
Of course it is. she aged 23 years in 4 years!
Getting the Birth Certs for all children, their Marriages if any, the Death Certs is the way to go.
by 1901 some children had left home, how old were they??
-
Just to repeat ages are not accurate in old records especially among those with low literacy and give a personal example
My relative Mary Louise WALKINSHAW is shown as aged 35 on the 1911 census living with her 55 year old sister Eliza. LINK (http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/reels/nai002421295/)
It is a very clear and legible 35
Yet in 1901 she is shown as 45 and Eliza is 42! LINK (http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/reels/nai000833167/)
Her surname is also given as SMYTH in 1901 the same as her brother-in-law rather than WALKINSHAW which was her only surname as she never married.
She died on March 6 1915 and her sister was the informant on the civil death record and gave her age as 60 LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1915/05270/4462933.pdf) #94
Doing the maths between these three dates no two can be correct
Quote
Don't know how to spell it out more clearly, but you do not appear to be reading my prior responses - these are two different families with Arthur and Elizabeth as parents, one in Ballymanus and one in Ballinglen with different children some with overlapping names - if you read my input you will see that this is simply NOT the same son Patrick.
I'm sorry it seems that way however if there were two families in the same area there would be two sets of records.
There are records of other Arthur BYRNEs but none that I found with a wife named Elizabeth at that time or children of the same names. edited please see next reply
Take a moment to review what you know from word of mouth and from proven sources
Family research teaches us very quickly that stories change with time and information can be distorted and inaccurate although close to true. I tell people to write it all down and keep it but also check it is true.
-
I kept looking and Arthur BYRNE married twice
He married a second time on Oct 30 1888 to Elizabeth NOLAN LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1888/10784/5932891.pdf)
The record is not very clear but I think it gives Elizabeth's age as 26 implying she was born c1862 which would be approx 40 in 1901
The church record is not on line but states that Arthur BYRNE was married before and was from Ballinglen
Elizabeth BYRNE nee BYRNE died Aug 21 1885 aged 35 according to her death record LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1885/06279/4799262.pdf) #159
This implies she was born c1850
She and Arthur were the parents of
Joseph bap Oct 12 1871
Laurence bap May 1872
Margaret bap Aug 28 1874
Hugh bap Mar 06 1876
Maria bap Sep 06 1877
Patrick b Apr 25 1879
Catherine bap Oct 04 1880
Anne bap Mar 24 1882
Denis b Nov 01 1883
Arthur b May 31 1885
I still haven't located birth or baptism records for Margaret or Elizabeth but without an estimated year of birth it is proving difficult with a common name - their mother may have been Elizabeth NOLAN if the births are after 1888. However, in light of your comment earlier "Ditto for his sisters who had also would have left home by that stage (all in their 20's)" referring to leaving home before 1901 I would have expected their births to have been earlier that 1885 (aged 16 in 1901)
Based on both marriage records Arthur's father was Hugh
Based on the second record his mother was Margaret
This ties in with the baptism in Killaveny (just south of Ballinglen) on Mar 31 1846
of Art BYRNE to Hugh BYRNE and Margaret KEEGAN given earlier
-
I kept looking and Arthur BYRNE married twice
He married a second time on Oct 30 1888 to Elizabeth NOLAN LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1888/10784/5932891.pdf)
The record is not very clear but I think it gives Elizabeth's age as 26 implying she was born c1862 which would be approx 40 in 1901
The church record is not on line but states that Arthur BYRNE was married before and was from Ballinglen
Elizabeth BYRNE nee BYRNE died Aug 21 1885 aged 35 according to her death record LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1885/06279/4799262.pdf) #159
This implies she was born c1850
She and Arthur were the parents of
Joseph bap Oct 12 1871
Laurence bap May 1872
Hugh bap Mar 06 1876
Maria bap Sep 06 1877
Patrick b Apr 25 1879
Catherine bap Oct 04 1880
Anne bap Mar 24 1882
Denis b Nov 01 1883
Arthur b May 31 1885
I still haven't located birth or baptism records for Margaret or Elizabeth but without an estimated year of birth it is proving difficult with a common name - their mother may have been Elizabeth NOLAN if their births are after 1888. However, in light of your comment earlier "Ditto for his sisters who had also would have left home by that stage (all in their 20's)" referring to leaving home before 1901 I would have expected their births to have been earlier that 1885 (aged 16 in 1901)
Based on both marriage records Arthur's father was Hugh
Based on the second record his mother was Margaret
This ties in with the baptism in Killaveny (just south of Ballinglen) on Mar 31 1846
of Art BYRNE to Hugh BYRNE and Margaret KEEGAN given earlier
Must be wrong family as poster has census, marriage and death records for Patrick that all validate his age which was 20 in 1901 hence born 1881
No sign of the other family!!!
-
Isn't this Margaret in 1874?
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1874/03139/2151237.pdf
https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000633994#page/89/mode/1up
The baptism has later added marriage details but very difficult to read.
Debra :)
-
Looks like Harrington St Dublin ?
https://registers.nli.ie/parishes/0517
-
Isn't this Margaret in 1874?
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1874/03139/2151237.pdf
https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000633994#page/89/mode/1up
The baptism has later added marriage details but very difficult to read.
Debra :)
Living in wrong place!!
.
.
-
Thanks Debra/Dundee for that I could see her birth or baptism for all the BYRNEs!!
I would suggest to ciaranob that you contact the Irish Valuation Office in the Irish Life Mall
http://www.valoff.ie/en/Archives_Genealogy_Public_Office/
or call in!
If you bring the address they were living at in 1901 they can show you the folio on a map and tell you who owned/rented the land from their records. This would show if their property straddled the border between Ballymanus and Ballinglen and is the reason for the confusion.
-
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01lgz/
-
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01lgz/
A link to Google map!
-
Great stuff all and truly do appreciate your efforts on my behalf.
Very interesting additions and indeed the game changer here would be if we do in fact believe that we have the same Arthur marrying two Elizabeths. My gut wanted the Ballymanus link to work but I dismissed it w/o considering the possibility of a re-marriage - my bad, as this is exactly what happened on Patrick Byrne's wife's side when Bridget the mother of his wife also named Bridget later remarried and caused some confusion in tracing their paths as Patrick and Bridget Byrne first lived with the now Bridget Belford in Newbridge prior to moving to Dublin in the early 1900s.
BTW I attached the record of Arthur's death in 1907 and the related probate that lists Patrick Joseph Byrne his son and my grand father to funds from his estate. Even here there are issues as Arthur listed as 53 in 1901 in Ballinglen is listed as 55 in this 1907 death record when, if the same individual, he should be 59! 100% confident on the probate doc and 80% on the death record! :)
Added death record to post below as would not stick to this one!
That said there is still some obvious fairly significant but not untenable age mis-matches for Patrick, Denis and Arthur and the missing Elizabeth would have to be from the second marriage - I have not traced where Elizabeth (mother) and daughter Elizabeth are in 1911 but possibilities to do so are listed below which I will get to eventually.
Will attach a summary in my next post (to many characters for one post!) - but please review to see if this all jives:
Thanks Debra/Dundee for that I could see her birth or baptism for all the BYRNEs!!
-
SUMAMRY TO DATE - APOLOGIES VERY LONG!:
Things have gotten quite complex with regard to Arthur and Elizabeth in Ballinglen!
I was aware of the other married couple Arthur Byrne and Elizabeth (nee Byrne) in Ballymanus (which borders Ballinglen) who were married in 1871. They did indeed have 10 children listed below which include a Patrick, Denis, Arthur, Anne and Margaret but no Elizabeth. I was dismissing this family as an odd coincidence to the Arthur and Elizabeth in Ballinglen - mainly because Ballinglen Elizabeth (possibly nee Nolan) aged 40 in 1901 could clearly NOT be the same Elizabeth who was married in Ballymanus in 1871 as she would have been 10 years old when married! :)
HOWEVER the new info from you on Ballymanus Elizabeth (nee Byrne), who married this Arthur Byrne in 1871, in regards apparently dying very young in 1885 aged 35 (so born 1850) is key;
Ballinglen Arthur is 53 in 1901 thus was aged 37 when Ballymanus Elizabeth (possible first wife) died age 35 in 1885.
Making the big assumption that the two Arthurs are indeed the same person, this death of his first wife and the new info on Arthur being remarried changes things a lot:
The revised story would be that Arthur Byrne at age 37 re-married in 1888, 3 years after his first wife died. He married another Elizabeth (nee Nolan), aged 27, with both eventually settling in Ballinglen (exact date unknown) with remaining children (sons) Denis and Arthur recorded there in 1901. For this scenario to work and to agree with the 1901 census, Anne would have to have left home before or at age 19, and all 7 other kids would have had to have moved out of the home to not be registered there in 1901 census.
NOTE DISPARITIES IN AGES BELOW - STILL AN ISSUE BUT MIGHT BE EXPLAINED AS SIMPLE ENTRY ERRORS
(UPDATE - Sorry formatting won't work here - the age 53 and 40 refs are for teh 1901 census -not tabbing to where they should be)
BALLYMANUS ELIZABETH (nee Byrne)- 1800’s Baptisms BALLINGLEN ELIZABETH Mariage to Arthur Byrne 1871 (nee Nolan) - 1901 Census
Possible mariage 1888
Arthur/Elizabeth CHILDREN Calculated 1901 AGE 1901 CENSUS RECORD
Arthur husband age 53
Elizabeth wife age 40
Joseph - Oct 12 1871 1901 age 30 -
Laurence - baptized May 1872 1901 age 29
Margaret - born Aug 1874 1901 age 27 -
Hugh - baptized March 6 1876 1901 age 25 -
Maria - baptized Sept 6 1877 1901 age 24 -
Patrick - baptized April 25 1879 1901 age 22 Aged 20 in Newbridge (hence born ca. 1881)
Catherine - baptized Oct 4 1880 1901 age 21 -
Anne baptized Mar 24 1882 1901 age 19 -
Denis - baptized Nov 1 1883 1901 age 18 Denis age 16
Arthur - baptized May 31 1885 1901 age 16 Arthur age 15
ALSO NOTABLY there is no Elizabeth listed in either record.
The missing Elizabeth would clearly need to be born to the second marriage i.e. Elizabeth nee Nolan. Two solutions are possible:
1) Elizabeth was born before Denis and Arthur but was old enough to have had left home by 1901. ONLY WORKS IF THE BALLINGLEN ELIZABETH IS NOT BALLYMANUS ELIZABETH, what I had ASSUMED to date, which may be wrong. The new info of a possible second marriage provides another possibility.
OR
2) Elizabeth was born between 1901 and 1907 but hard to trace as Arthur died in 1907 and if the death record I have posted later below is correct for Arthur it lists him as a widower in 1907 so his second wife Elizabeth had apparently already passed leaving daughter Elizabeth ages 5-6 years old to reside with another relative?
-
Candidate for Arthur's Death Record - for some reason it would not attach to prior post - this is an exact date match to the Probate Record above leaving monies to Patrick J. Byrne his son and my grandfather.
Again this age is inconsistent with a 1901 age of 53 - should be 59 in 1907 so not 100% certain this is his - most interesting perhaps is that it list him as a widower suggesting he lost his second wife before 1907 which in addition adds further difficulty to locating Elizabeth especially if she was 5-6 years old with both parents dead.
-
Well just to potentially complicate things further there was an 'auto-match' on Ancestry to an Elizabeth Cavanagh from Ardoyne Ireland for the Elizabeth in Ballinglen. This 'match' is from another family tree so of course no gaurantee at all that it is a mis-match but will need to look into that too in case all of the above is still suspect!
In addition I have had no luck seeing an Elizabeth, nor Lizzie, nor Eliza etc. Byrne death record from 1900-1907 ...
-
Where are you seeing this, the ref to Ballinglen - this is key? The record with E. Nolan seems to be referencing a Baltinglass location, not sure? i.e. hard to read residence at time of marriage on this form
I kept looking and Arthur BYRNE married twice
He married a second time on Oct 30 1888 to Elizabeth NOLAN LINK (https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1888/10784/5932891.pdf)
The record is not very clear but I think it gives Elizabeth's age as 26 implying she was born c1862 which would be approx 40 in 1901
The church record is not on line but states that Arthur BYRNE was married before and was from Ballinglen
-
I have Irish ancestors appearing on 1901 and 1911 censuses and their ages are all over the place! I don't think you should get too concerned about people's ages being a few years out - people just weren't so concerned about their age as we are today. My ancestors couldn't decide between censuses whether they could read and write!
I have also found that official registration details don't always match baptismal records as babies tended to be baptised within a week or so of birth, but getting down to the registry office could take months. To avoid a fine, some dates were massaged to fit.
Also don't forget that the census was a snapshot of one night only. Elizabeth not being at home doesn't mean she had left home. She may have been sitting with a sick neighbour or helping a mother with a new baby or a thousand other things - I too have a great aunt missing in 1901, but she was back at home in 1911 and was living with her mother at her mother's death in 1920s.
-
The more I look into these references you provided the more holes seem to appear: e.g. you reference Joseph bap Oct 12 1871 with a link but this his parents are Arthur Byrne and Eliza Cavanagh - def not Elizabeth Byrne nee Nolan! Am I missing something here? Most of the other siblings are either not recorded in this provided link or not associated with an Elizabeth Byrne of Ballymanus - suggestions appreciated as at this point I remain thoroughly confused.
Ballymanus borders Ballinglen to the south
Remembering that BYRNE is a very common name it is always wise to double check things however as you can see on the marriage record in 1871 Arthur made his mark X rather than write so his literacy was low; this can lead to ages being distorted on records. The earlier in life you find a record the more accurate you can expect it to be.
Also this couple have more than six children
LINK (https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000633692#page/1/mode/1up) to baptism register
Joseph bap Oct 12 1871
Laurence bap May 1872
Hugh bap Mar 06 1876
Maria bap Sep 06 1877
Patrick b Apr 25 1879
Anne bap Mar 24 1882
Denis b Nov 01 1883
Arthur b May 31 1885
Margaret - not found
Elizabeth - not found
I cannot find any reference to the name Charles but the two father's names from the marriage record (Hugh and Denis) are among the children
-
Sorry ciaranob I have commitments and no time today to go through everything here
When I get a chance during the week I will look again and see if I can clarify more but you are taking the correct approach to go through each find and scrutinise it and find records to confirm things.
FTR most of my Roscommon ancestors were baptised before they were born if the records are to be believed and several went through life with different names to their records e.g. Eugene being Owen etc. Also living in border areas meant they were between parishes and dioceses even and across counties; not forgetting that borders also moved. Ballyhaunis being a great example of this as it is currently in Co. Roscommon but still affliated to Mayo GAA!
-
I can't even see a Byrne baptism in Oct 1871, or a baptism on the 12th
https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000633692#page/26/mode/1up
Bottom left, last two are Nov.
The year search isn't working properly on Wiclow parish which doesn't help.
-
Absolutely no problem and again appreciate the interest and suggestions. I am trying of course to reduce the uncertainties though and to be honest the only new piece of info I have in this thread to date is the possibility of Arthur remarrying and linking back to Ballymanus Elizabeth Byrne nee Byrne - just need to recheck her child list - I'll look on FamilySearch etc. All the other records including Margaret etc. I actually already had from searches of FamilySearch.org/NLI Parish and civil records/Nat Archives/Tithe books and online sites like MyHeritage/Ancestry/FindMyPast etc.
It was the mormon site that just recently flagged a member tree as linking Cavanagh as a possible maiden name of the Ballinglen Elizabeth but nothing certain of course as yet (I am x-checking dates to see if that even fits). The baptismal record you pointed to for Elizabeth Byrne (nee Byrne) for son Joseph Byrne in Oct 12 1871 (pic attached) is actually a birth to Arthur Byrne and Eliza Byrne nee Cavanagh. Couple that with the original Arthur Byrne baptismal record I found for 1848 which fits the 1901 53 year age for Arthur in Ballinglen (as opposed to the 1846 record suggested in this thread and a link to the Hugh as father above) means I cannot rule that out either (having father Charles and mother Anne), perhaps still the least likely though.
Back to the proposed re-marrriage confirmation - need to be sure that the suggested Arthur Byrne to Elizabeth Byrne nee Nolan is the correct Arthur (seems like this cert reads to Balltinglass and may be a red herring - would then throw out Hugh as father etc.). I'll work this further.
Have a list of all Byrnes in the Ballinglen and surrounding Parishes and will work those too to try to resolve the inconsistencies but those on this forum with much more experience in this field can likely expedite this process (thats the hope!) :)
Research scientist by background but in an entirely different field and like you have a day job and wishing I had more time for the search - extremely interesting to me :)!
Sorry ciaranob I have commitments and no time today to go through everything here
........
-
Found it now, there is 1871 and other years on more than one page, very confusing.
https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000633692#page/24/mode/1up
-
Yes - same as posted in my last post.
Found it now, there is 1871 and other years on more than one page, very confusing.
https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000633692#page/24/mode/1up
-
So in respect the Arthur Byrne who married Elizabeth (nee) Byrne in Ballymanus in 1871 being the same Arthur that married Elizabeth (nee) Nolan in Baltinglass 1888.
Asside: Does seem a bit odd that Arthur a farmer would live in Ballymanus in 1871 then in Baltinglass in 1888 then back in Ballinglen prior to 1901 i.e. Baltinglass is definitely the ‘odd out’ location w.r.t. farmland lease/ownership - maybe just co-dwelling prior to marriage
REVIEW OF WHAT RECORDS WE HAVE:
As poster MyLuck! pointed out, both Ballymanus and Baltinglass Arthur’s share a Hugh Byrne as a father - seems highly probable they are the same person. If we carry that, again as MyLuck points out, there is also a baptismal record of Arthur born to Hugh and Margaret Byrne which indicates Arthur is born in 1846 - this matches Ballymanus Arthur’s age in the 1871 Ballymanus marriage certificate (at 25), so all consistent.
Further Ballymanus Elizabeth dies in 1885 age 35.
Arthur then marries Baltinglass Elizabeth in 1888 - this timing works.
_______________________
So the remaining uncertainty for me is whether Arthur son of Hugh or either of these Elizabeths are in fact related to the 1901 Census record of an Arthur and Elizabeth Byrne in Ballinglen - we do not have anything to 100% directly link them as yet other than area and sharing two sons names Denis and Arthur.
Ballinglen Arthur born 1848 - note there is one baptism/birth in Tinahely of Arthur Byrne born to Charles Byrne and Anne (nee) Murphy - no certainty if the same Arthur but the date does match his later reported age.
Ballinglen Arthur recorded as age 53, wife Elizabeth 40 in 1911 census
Ballinglen Arthur dies in 1907 (2 sources), is notably a widower, but death record says 55 - should be 59 based on 1901 census! Note Arthur son of Hugh should be 61 in 1907!!
Ballinglen Elizabeth dies in 1905 age 63 - big problem with this age is the Ballinglen Elizabeth in the 1901 census is 40!! - which age is correct (if we assume the same woman)?
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS:
1) One possible way to link the Elizabeth (nee Nolan) in the 1888 Baltinglass Arthur Byrne marriage certificate is to read her age as 46 and not 26 (even though it looks more like 26 it is a very poorly preserved image - cracking this may be key). If we make it 46 then Elizabeth (nee Nolan) would indeed match in respect age to the death date for Ballinglen Elizabeth at 63 in 1905. This solution would still need the 1901 Ballinglen census age of 40 to be (significantly) wrong - perhaps a typo and should have been a 6 instead of a 4?
2) Alternatively, as MyLuck! earlier suggested, if 26 is correct then Elizabeth (nee Nolan) would be approx 40 in 1901 matching the census and implying the death record of 63 is an error and perhaps should be 43. I am leaning towards this for now.
3) That Arthur/Elizabeth in 1901 Ballinglen are not connected to Arthur (son of Hugh) nor his two wives.
Sorry ciaranob I have commitments and no time today to go through everything here
.........
-
Research scientist by background but in an entirely different field and like you have a day job and wishing I had more time for the search - extremely interesting to me :)!
........
If you can find the Formula for 100% accuracy in Genealogy then Register it....make a fortune!!
-
Indeed - not looking for that but ages that are 20 years inconsistent likely raise more of a flag than +/- 5 years. A typo is another possibility i.e. error in entry rather than word of mouth age.
-
Can anyone hazard a guess as to what could be written in the red circles in the attached screen dump - tried various ways to enhance the text but pretty much the same result - MyLuck! mentioned that there may be additional info in the offline church records (including stating Arthur was remarrying and from Ballinglen) which would be great to see if possible - assume the notes added later on the side to entry 9 might refer to this.
LINK: https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1888/10784/5932891.pdf
-
Elizabeth Nolan age 26 years
" " mother Mary French/Trench?
Priest and parish P. Boland P.P. Hacketstown
-
Thx - thats two for 26 :) The indent or dot below the candidate 2 had me considering other numbers as possible - was trying to imagine a 4 but 26 def a high probability. Was hoping to decipher some of the later note on the side but super tough to read.
Elizabeth Nolan age 26 years
" " mother Mary French/Trench?
Priest and parish P. Boland P.P. Hacketstown
-
Here's a cool link - in the baptismal 1846 record for Arthur Byrne son of Hugh and Margaret Byrne (my candidate great great grandparents) one of the witness's is a Pat Lambert. I tracked down what appears to be Hugh Byrne's home/farm lease in Ballymanus in the National Archives and lo and behold his next door neighbor is listed right there as a Pat Lambert. Nice when this stuff works :)!
LINK to land records (need to get a map of the actual properties - next task! - thx for the pointer from MyLuck!):
http://census.nationalarchives.ie/reels/vob/IRE_CENSUS_1821-51_007246936_00970.pdf
LINK to Hugh and Margarets baptismal record of their son Arthur (my great grandfather) with Pat Lambert listed as a witness (7th from bottom left entry - thx to prev poster for this):
https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000633994#page/23/mode/1up