Seeking assistance to find birthplace of Irish ancestor Ann Sharkey

[majm]

http://colsec.records.nsw.gov.au/

SHARKEY, Ann. Per "Friendship"

1818 Jul 31, Aug 14

Re permission to marry at Liverpool (Reel 6006; 4/3499 p.10)




My transcription from the Col Sec papers, Reel 6006, p.10 ...

10

List of Persons praying His Excellency's permission to have their names published in Church in order to their being married - - - Liverpool 31st July 1818

....... _{(details for another couple seeking permission to marry)}

William Herbert - Prisoner per Ship Shipley and
Ann Sharkey -       "          "      "  Friendship

                                              (Signed) 'John Youl"
                                               Ass^t Chaplain

App^d
(Signed) 'L. Macquarie"

JM

[GeoffTurner]

That's it, thanks JM

[majm]

There is an Ann SHARKEY with correspondence in the Col Secretary Papers index, noting she came per the Friendship, and was in the Liverpool district and seeking permission to marry there in July/August 1818, and I think she may be your lass…  http://colsec.records.nsw.gov.au/ ......

So that is for a request made in July 1818,  and it was lodged by one of the Assistant NSW Chaplains and it was approved by Lachlan Macquarie, NSW Governor.    So the administrative officers of the NSW Colonial Secretary's Office had to go back through their records to check and so from an historical perspective, whether Ann arrived per Canada (4) or Friendship (2) is of little consequence, BUT ... we do need to recognise that the Permission to Marry record does show that Ann arrived per the ship Friendship and makes no mention of the ship Canada.  Both those ships transported female convicts to NSW, Canada in 1817 and Friendship in 1818.    Under Macquarie, the administration became focused on documenting just about 'everything' including many clerical aspects that follow the same 'rules' developed by Macquarie even now, in the 21st Century here in NSW.   

If I were asked to consider if info on a Muster Roll was more reliable than info on an Application to Marry, I would say 'cannot give 100% assurance, but I think Application to Marry would be more reliable, particularly if it was given within a reasonable time frame after arrival.'   

I note that Ancestry has a current partnership with NSW Archives.

1823 Liverpool (NSW) population Book,   
Ann SHIRKEY, FbS  (Free by Servitude) Canada 1817, 7 (years), Wife to Wm Herbert
Marg SHIRKEY, 4, BC  (born in the Colony)
Wm SHIRKEY, 1 BC

1822 General Muster
Ann SHIRKEY, C (Convict) Canada, Wife of Wm Herbert
.. SHIRKEY, 3 BC
SHIRKEY, 2m (2 months?) BC

I have NOT located any Muster Roll or similar for NSW for 1818

ADD, my reasoning would be that it would be a separate action to check the documents for each Application to marry and then to have these signed off, whereas the Muster Rolls would become a mundane checking task and thus easier for slip of pencil.   So if in 1823 you were to check back, you would likely only check back to the most handy - ie the 1822 roll and not go back to first principles each time, whereas with marriage, as a clerk, checking an application, you would be aware of the religious importance of the ceremony... afterall, you too were required to attend church every week as per Macquarie's regulations, and if you did not, then you ran the risk of being charged, and transported to .... Newcastle or further. 

JM

[majm]

Very odd - look at the convict number 

1824 Liverpool (NSW)
Ann SHIRKEY  15/861
FS
Canada
1817
7
Wife of Wm Herbert.

So there is a convict number (15/861) to follow up, number allocated on arrival in the penal colony.

JM

[majm]

Attaching snip

[GeoffTurner]

The 1818 Muster has her coming on the Canada in 1817. It gives her correct trial date (1816) and place (Dublin). The 1817 Canada roll also has her among the prisoners from Dublin City. The Friendship roll I have does not include an Ann Sharkey. I can only guess that the vicar filling in the application to marry was confused. Neither the intended bride nor intended groom were literate. I have ordered her death certificate in the hope that might tell us more, although we will be relying on the informant's knowledge, which is not always 100% accurate, of course.

[majm]

The 1818 Muster has her coming on the Canada in 1817. It gives her correct trial date (1816) and place (Dublin). The 1817 Canada roll also has her among the prisoners from Dublin City. The Friendship roll I have does not include an Ann Sharkey. I can only guess that the vicar filling in the application to marry was confused. Neither the intended bride nor intended groom were literate. I have ordered her death certificate in the hope that might tell us more, although we will be relying on the informant's knowledge, which is not always 100% accurate, of course.

I am not so sure that this is attributable to the Reverend being confused, or anyone being confused.   

The '15' is for the year 1815,  which is why I noted it as 'odd'

I am also wary of info when it is based on transcriptions or from indexes,or from sources which may not be 'independent' and I strive to get to the document closest to the event.   You will find the image of the parish register for the marriage via Ancestry, and likely you will find other images at Ancestry or at Find My Past.     

May I suggest you check the actual date for the document you refer to as 1818 Muster in case it was a combined document put together several years after 1818.  NSW Archives info:
https://www.records.nsw.gov.au/archives/collections-and-research/guides-and-indexes/census-musters-guide

JM

[GeoffTurner]

OK, I didn't understand what the 15 meant. That would suggest the woman on the Canada was someone different. I'll have to go back to first principles, as you say, and try to find a woman arriving here in 1815. But if she arrived in 1815 she couldn't have come on the Friendship. Its voyages were 1788, 1800 and 1818. I'm not too worried about the Sharkey/Shirkey anomaly, it may have come about through attempts to understand a thick Irish brogue. She wouldn't have been able to spell it out to a clerk or vicar.

[majm]

I speculate ...
Convict 861 Ann SHARKEY and Convict 1042 Ann KEOGH were both tried together ... I speculate because on one they are bracketed together as tried January 1816, Dublin City.  I have found an image online, but I am simply NOT SURE if it is an image of a list made in 1817 or made far more recently, as the handwriting seems to me to be same as many of my own school teachers ...  anyway, just in case, on the handwritten list I can see same brackets and that Ann S noted as a Servant aged 26, and Ann K as a Housekeeper aged 31 and both were tried January 1816, Dublin City.

So perhaps you need to be seeking a newspaper report of a trial in Dublin City involving two lasses.

JM