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 - Dulciebun

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 29
10
Type 'vessels' in the 'lived in' box on the search form. If they were on a boat  in port in England or Wales, they should have been recorded.
On land, they should be findable by age and birthplace in the usual way.

As to your second enquiry, Sunderland, Durham seems fairly specific, and not somewhere you'd name unless you had at least some association with it.  Have you found them on censuses?

Galium, I'm grateful for your thoughts.

The (Irish) mariner and his lady were wed in Sunderland, I have the marriage certificate. The name Sunderland has gone down through the family, and the 2 daughters born in the UK believed they were born in Sunderland... so I'm wondering if they came into the world on a boat?

I'm asking about Harbours, and where harbour-dwellers/temporary visitors get recorded in a general sense, because the bride gave her address as 'Seaham Harbour' - no street, no nothing, just 'Seaham Harbour'.
    I have enquired at Seaham, and have been told that this very probably means she was actually AT the harbour, at the time of her wedding, rather than in lodgings or with any family in the town.

Which also suggests she arrived by boat? and then got married in Sunderland - and then what?

This couple emigrated to the USA in about 1868, after having 2 children (the daughters whose birth records I'm seeking). But I can't find the couple on any UK census, nor can I find the daughters' births.

D

11
I've got an ancestor who was recorded twice on census night.

He is recorded at home in Sunderland, Co. Durham, with his wife and several children.

He is also recorded as a captain on a small ship in Monkwearmouth, Co. Durham, together with his wife and their new baby plus the captain's brother.

I think this probably came about because the house census was previously filled in and a few days later the captain and his wife took their new baby to introduce the baby to family in North Yorkshire.   The harbour/port census was filled in by an official who was responsible for making sure all boats in the harbour were accounted for.

Rena
Thank you for sharing your story.
I'd say that was a stroke of great good luck, there being two records instead of one: it enlarges your picture of this family and what they were doing.

Was it common for women and babies to be on board boats in the 1860s? Many of the boats around Seaham etc were coal boats and I'd always (probably wrongly) assumed that seamen couldn't bring their wives along - but maybe they could?
D

12
People on boats (+ tents, caravans, outhouses &c.) should be at the end of the enumerator's book as far as I know. That's providing the enumerator knew where to look and the people were present when he turned up. If they arrived late at night and left early next morning and didn't stay in lodgings with a lodgings-keeper,  they may have gone uncounted. Another complication is that an enumerator may have got details about them from a third party who had incomplete or inaccurate information.     

Maiden Stone, thank you.
'Gone uncounted'... I was afraid of hearing this, but I'm sure you're right, it did happen.

I have checked at what I believed to be the end of the Seaham censuses but was surprised that there seemed to be so little mention of boats, especially when accounts from the period in question mention a great deal of activity in the docks etc. So I guess I must be looking in the wrong place... or the Harbour Master was lazy and didn't keep his records, or the enumerator didn't know where to ask for details of passengers... or?

D

13
Regarding UK Census 1861.

If a person [crew, or passenger,] was on a boat in a UK harbour for Census night, will they appear on the UK census and, if so, where?

Also, if in 1861 they were staying at a small UK Harbour which had cabins in the harbour area for passengers [they got off the boat, to avoid fire risk, but didn't go to lodgings in the town], where would they be recorded on a Census?

While I'm here;  I'm searching for the births of a Mariner's 2 daughters (circa 1864 + 1866) but not finding them anywhere at all. The daughters (who had later emigrated to the USA) believed they were born in Sunderland, Co. Durham, but there are no convincing birth records for them in Sunderland or County Durham or anywhere on UK land that I can see. Your thoughts, please.

Thank you. 
Dulciebun

14

1880 census in the US with Bridget's mother in the household www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MXJM-1ZX

The address for the above quoted family is 86 Edgar Street.

From various Chicago directories:

1873
McTaminey Bridget, wid Henry, r Edgar, nr Bloomingdale Rd.

1874
McTaminey, Bridget, wid. Henry r 35 Edgar
Murphy, Elizabeth, wid Matthias, r 35 Edgar

1878
Murphy, Elizabeth, wid. Matthew, house 86 Edgar

1888
Murphy, Elizabeth , wid Matthew h 713 N. Ashland Ave.


I believe that your Bridget did move to Chicago; whether or not she should be in that family tree mentioned over several prior posts is another story.  They may have just conflated two (or more!) families to "fit".   
The above directory entries just seem to be beyond coincidence with Bridget McTaminey, wid Henry, and Elizabeth Murphy, wid Matthew living in the same house.

They may have crossed the ocean to Canada, and then went down to the US. Passage was much cheaper that way. Unfortunately, there are few Canadian ship records for that time period. I had no luck searching for the ship record for Elizabeth Murphy, only because there were sooo many with that name.

On a side note, although the spelling McatAminey is rare in the UK, the spelling McatOminey  yields a fair amount (at least in Durham).

bbart
Thank you so much for your skill !
This is marvellous.
Yes, I've been told that many Derry families took the Canada option first and shifted down to the USA later.

Looking at the spread of details here, the "widow Elizabeth Murphy + Matthias", plus "Bridget McTaminey widow Henry", is what clinches it for me - and yes, I can see they really did emigrate.
Thank you for showing me real evidence.
So the directories local to Chicago confirm it. (Will bear this in mind, you've taught  me something useful.)

I live in County Durham and here we have, as you correctly point out, McAtOmin[e]y families (this also contracts to McTomney in my particular town.)

However, I'm still confused. WHO is this Bridget who went to Canada/USA?  Yes, a Bridget Murphy definitely crossed the ocean with a Henry Mc(A)taminey, but who was she, when on UK soil? The Bridget Murphy I can see at Seaton Colliery - in Office Row (later Post Office Row) - was 18 on the 1861 census, too young for the Sunderland marriage; this girl's brother was working at Seaton pit which is right next to Seaham pit, not too far from Seaham Harbour but separated from it.  The Elizabeth (b.1817 County Meath) who is this Bridget's mother isn't nearly old enough to be the Elizabeth Murphy who you've shown me to be in Chicago.  So there are 2 different families, surely, woven together on the Ancestry trees? - creating a confusing picture for those of us looking in.

But we still need a BRIDGET MURPHY, aged 22 in 1862, who was around in Seaham/Sunderland in the right place & period to be able to meet Henry the Mariner, from Mill Street Sunderland (this was mainly a street of lodging houses for people of many nationalities).

I know Seaham lacked a Catholic Church until the 1880s, and they built one specially for the enlarging Irish community. In the meantime the Catholics had to use a Seaham barn to worship in (!) or travel to Sunderland to worship in a proper manner. I wonder if this Bridget & Henry attended the same church (and got married in it?)

Where else can we look for this Bridget? What might a lass aged 21 or 22 be doing, in this time-period? 

By the way I've found a 22-year-old Bridget Lawless (which is the name of one of the witnesses) in Ryhope [close to Seaham] in domestic service in 1861.

Very grateful for your ideas.
D x

15

From her death entry on the index:

Bridget Devin?Y b. 1841 in Ireland, age 73
Death Date on 7 Aug 1914 Maywood, Cook, Illinois
Burial 9 Aug 1914 at Mt Carmel
Widowed
Father Mathew Murphy b. Ireland
Mother ? b. Ireland



MonicaL
Please tell me where you have seen these details (death index?)
Are the question marks on the index or are they your own?
Thank you
Dulciebun

16
Sorry - no place of birth.

It's fairly clear from other records for baptisms of their children that Hugh married Bridget Scullion

That's OK! So not Murphy, but still useful: to try and understand the presence of the Henry we have here, I've been collecting members of the McAtaminey (and variant) clan, to try & find their origins; there are only a handful of them in England, and they seem to be from a fairly limited area of County Derry, just above Lough Neagh.

17
Just to note there's an irish born  Bridget McAtaminey and family in Dumbarton, but she appears to be wife of Hugh and probably with maiden name Scullion

Thank you :-)
It's always helpful to find more McAtamineys because they are quite rare in England.  Does it give any county of birth for this Bridget, please?
D

18
As Cas mentions, there looks to have been a move to Chicago, Illinois. From the family trees, Henry McTaminey is showing as having died there in 1870. A second marriage for Bridget in 1875 to a Patrick Downey on 29 Jan 1875.

1880 census in the US with Bridget's mother in the household www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MXJM-1ZX

Daughter Elizabeth's marriage in 1891 www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XZQ4-2XQ She was born 8 Nov 1869 in Chicago

1900 Census www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MS35-VWJ

1910 Census www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:MKH2-DY4

From her death entry on the index:

Bridget Devin?Y b. 1841 in Ireland, age 73
Death Date on 7 Aug 1914 Maywood, Cook, Illinois
Burial 9 Aug 1914 at Mt Carmel
Widowed
Father Mathew Murphy b. Ireland
Mother ? b. Ireland

Cemetery details www.findagrave.com/cemetery/2727864/mt-carmel-catholic-cemetery

Monica

It's very kind of you to quote these details, however as I've written in the previous post, I have gone deeper into the tree you've found and it doesn't seem at all secure. The emigration details don't match a Henry. The 1870 census has the wrong surname. Other, later census entries which the American family has suggested also don't match up.

D

I am fully prepared to be wrong!! (I sometimes am.)  The Will supplied on the Ancestry tree is for a 'Bridget Murphy', however she'd already married once and possibly twice.  There's no death date or circumstances suggested for Henry McAtaminey's demise, no birth year suggested either, and, since this US family seems to think it knows so much about itself, I find it hard to accept that they would have no idea what happened to Henry, if this were the right family.
Happy to be proved wrong.
D

Also, another Ancestry tree based on the idea that 'Bernard' emigrated to the USA, shows Henry (not Bernard) McAtaminey as a Captain in the civil war...I thought the war ended 1865? and so how does this couple get wed 1862, have 2 kids in England and also allow Henry to be a soldier at Captain level... can't be correct...

In addition, the "McDonnell" family on the 1870 show the father, Henry, working in a store - I don't see a Mariner working in a store, do you?  Just trying to show where things don't quite feel right, with these extended trees. D

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 29