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
.........
