Orphanage Tinahely Wicklow

[Murrell]

Hi Sinann
I'm mega impressed with your searching - l continued to look thru Shillelagh Workhouse last nite but didn't see a Lucy so at the moment it is very much as if they were definitely at Rathdrum.
I'm wondering if my relative having been told Lucy was 9 yrs when she died, could in fact be it was Grandma Kate who was 9yrs when her sister died!!!!
I can't thank you enough for your help 😀

[Sinann]

Yes, I've been thinking the same, that it was Kate who was 9 when Lucy died.
Kate is 1 week old in  March 1902 but there doesn't appear to be a birth cert so it doesn't look like she was born in the workhouse, I think it's going to be the same for the rest of the children, the only one with a cert it seems is Lucy's death cert but the children would have been baptised.

You would need to look through the registers more carefully but first pass it looks like Mary brought her children to the workhouse for short spells in the winter, I think the man John was with them and may even be the children's father.

There just doesn't appear to be any other combination of  Kate and Lucy any where in Wicklow so I'd say these are your family. The death of Lucy would I'd say confirm it.
Michael on Kate's marriage cert could be made up, it wasn't uncommon to make up a father or he could be a father figure from some point in her life.
We haven't found any connection to Tinahely but again it may be some where she lived at some point.
If her brother John attacked her it might explain why she never mentioned having brothers.

[Sinann]

A though, the boy William with Mary in 1902, I think is the son of John Lomax, this looks like Mary and John in 1899, numbers 184 and 185, page 30.
https://www.rootschat.com/links/01psp/
See page 69 from 1756

[Sinann]

Have a look at this marriage Oct 1893
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1893/10616/5867938.pdf
John Lomax and Anne Kearns, could John Lomax be Mary's brother in law!.. or even step father!


John Lomax and son William are in the workhouse in 1894, John at number 1690 and William at 1706 on page 68
https://www.rootschat.com/links/01psq/

[Sinann]

There are some Petty Sessions records for John Lomax and one for a William Lomack 1908 to 1910, I can only see the index on FamilySearch but you can look on Find My Past, yes?

[Murrell]

Wow ur on a super roll Sinann. Having just seen your post it does seem to fit & maybe Kate made Michael up! we will never know.
 But I do know when she married a second time she named a different father ?
I'm beginning wonder what was going on she claimed her
date of birth  09.09.1905.
Honestly you couldn't make it up -talk about secrets and lies lol

[Sinann]

She was only 9 when she lost her mother, so I guess she might not have known when her birthday was, it's possible over the years she and those caring for her lost track of her age. It's not like people celebrated birthdays or continually had to fill in date of birth on forms like we do.

[Murrell]

Hi on just checked out William Lomack 29th May 1908.
He broke shop Windows two of them valued at 2pounds 6shillings for this he is committed to a Reformatory for 3 yrs.
As for John Lomax  he  ill treated an ass 3rd Aug 1910 the case is adjourned - same date he is drunk in the workhouse
for this he is convicted 1month hard labour Mountjoy
8th Sept John is given 2months for the earlier hearing ill treatment of Thomas Cullan's ass

[Murrell]

Yes that true there would not be as much emphasis placed on birthdays- and I'm thinking not many requirements where dob were asked  not like now a days.Probably later in life easier to create a date.
Once again thank you very much, I will take a further look at everything in the morning. 😀