This page has been designed using two frames. The left hand frame (this one) contains the reasoning and the right hand one, the data. This is useful because it enables me to quote the data and comment on it, without causing any confusion as to what is data and what is comment! At least, that's the formula - in this case the 'data' is essentially a fictional work! But that's what I propose to establish.
There are two books on the Torrance families which are quotes as being authorities on the family name:
I have told elsewhere how Jared searched for his Irish roots and it is clear from letter 5 how Jared wished to establish how he was related to Sergeant Hugh. This letter and others in this author's possession prove that, much as Jared wanted to establish this connection, he wasn't happy to fabricate one! He wanted the truth, and was prepared to pay for it! So it is clear that Jared's work is to be trusted.
However, my doubts about some of RMT's book have been expressed elsewhere . That Sergeant Hugh existed is beyond dispute, we have a transcript of the 1699 Exchequer Bill (the file 1699 Kil Byrne in the text archive of documents. But there is no known record of him having sons. So what was the source of the 'well known fact' that he had three sons, Albert Torrence, Hugh Torrance and James Torrance? One possibility is that Gustav Anjou was involved - but there's no definite proof.
Now I have in my possession a photocopy (courtesy of Elbert W. Philips) of an early work, whose opening pages are reproduced in the frame to the right.
The name James is common in Scotland and in the Bann Valley: there are records of James in the Torrance families in Avondale as early as 1533. There are several records to 'James' around 1600 but none of these give any clue to the age of the person named. I tend to be sceptical of such a bald statement of fact, with no evidence! It has been said that Gustav Anjou quoted references, sometimes invented, as authority. Maybe the Torrance genealogy is a product of his early work, before he got wise to the need to quote references. Who knows? I have no way of checking who were his sons: Scottish records are very rare in that period and those available give almost no assistance on relationships. But Hugh also is common in that time/place in the Torrances. A James may well have had a grandson Hugh! However, the Hugh he is quoted as being grandfather to is my own ancestor: much on this site is aimed at clarifying his ancestors. I do not suspect a James as being amongst them. And as to James having another grandson in Drumbo... we have no record of any Torrance whatsoever in Drumbo at that time.
James married a Mary: interestingly there are no known records of any Mary Torrance at that time in Scotland. Interesting as Mary is extremely common in Ireland - nearly 10% of the population seem to have been Mary. Almost as common as John. If you quoted ancestors John and Mary - you had a good statistical chance of being correct!
James may well have had a son Thomas: both common names. But Mitchel is very shy of quoting anything at all which would help subsequent researchers check out which James, Thomas or Mary these are!
A much more interesting name. Interesting in that it does not occur in the Bann Valley population at all in 1796, let alone in the Torrances! The Scottish and the Irish who had emigrated from Scotland adhered quite strictly to traditional naming patterns around 1700. If there was an Aaron, he was almost certainly Scottish and emigrated straight to America. As for having a son, Hugh, in Ireland. Out of the question. As far as we can establish, Hugh and his immediate family were very strict adherents to naming traditions. Had his father been Aaron, he would certainly have had a son Aaron. Hugh (1695-1779), as far as we can establish had brothers Alexander and James. No sign of an Aaron in their families either.
Here is a small amount os truth: we know that Hugh had a daughter Jean who married a John. They did have a son John who left for America, but that son John has been located in Garvagh Visitation list in Ireland in 1796: he went to America between then and 1804 - so this John is not he!
I also find the list of his children amusing: the name 'William Jackson' stands out amongst seven other children with only one name!
It is notable that this person does not appear in the list. This is perhaps a surprise: this book is dated 1924 and Jared's book was only published in 1923, yet this book quotes a large part of Jared's book. Mitchel acknowledges that he is quoting Jared's work. This and the dating probably proves that he and Jared knew of each others work, indeed they were evidently swapping manuscripts! So Mitchel really must have known of the Sgt Hugh legend!
Note the quote here about 'Parish of Oughednway, near Nocarrah'. Nocarrah is a merely part of a townland, nowadays no more than a single farm. This is another piece of proof that Mitchel was not particularly concerned with the truth of the facts that he quotes!
In 1938 RMT published his follow-up to JST's book. In it he presents the children of Sgt Hugh and the 'fact' that Albert is father of:
One of the authorities he quotes is our Mitchel T Torrance! On page 32 of RMT's book occurs the following:
”Would say that Thomas Torrance, my great-great grandfather, and his brother Aaron, came to America before 1740, from the North of Ireland, and settled near Bristol, Conn. Thomas Torrance was born about 1718, in Ireland, and married Anna Mitchell. They had a large family, among others were Thomas Torrance, Samuel, Hugh, and Styles Torrance.
Samuel Torrance was my great-grandfather and was born in Roxbury, Conn., April 5, 1750. He died Dec. 5, 1843. His wife was Anna Root.•
This letter confirms the relationship of the brothers Thomas and Aaron, to their father, Albert Torrence, and concluded with the writes's line of descendants, which will appear in the proper order of succession.The letter which follows was written August 13, 1922, to Mrs Anna Torrence Garlough, of Yellow Springs, Ohio, by Mitchell T Torrance, of Randolph, New York. He was born July 3, 1845, and died in 19327.
So here is a clearly very confused source being quoted as a reliable authority some 16 years later.
I don't particularly relish going on with this narrative: bits of it are unprovable and other bits of it are certainly fictional and of bad quality to boot! If I find that an apple contains worms and rotten bits, I throw the whole apple out. I am tempted to do this to Mitchel's book. Certainly the earliest records are best assumed to be erroneous - until we can prove them otherwise.
Consigning Mitchels early tree to the trashcan clearly also similarly treats parts of RMT's book.
However, Mitchel was born on the 3rd July 1845 (d. 1927) - so is one of the earliest genealogists we have on record. Some of his book must be valuable. But just how do we identify the good bits?