[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Lunney Family <jglunney@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: 1660 names
- From: "Richard Torrens (genealogy)" <torrens@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 02 Nov 1999 17:52:59 +0000 (GMT)
- User-agent: Pluto/1.13b (RISC-OS/3.70)
> Dear Richard, jeepers! what a lot of work!
Not really: I already had the names transcribed and the long one
(Donegal) I got off the Internet, so someone else typed that. The rest
is fiddling the computer program to do the actual counting. Then a
bit of manual work deleting the duplicated lines, not too onerous! It
would be quite easy to repeat with the christian names. It takes the
computer a fair time!
> Could you find somewhere more public to upload all of these names? What
> aboutthe Rootsweb Derry queries list?
OK I'll upload the list to our www site sometime, then you can announce
> So much work should be useful to many people interested in the early
> Derry families; it would be useful for comparisons between earlier and
> later periods and between areas. I could imagine being able to identify
> population trends by the names; I mean, I could have a guess at the
> Scots and English and Irish settlers, and it might be very instructive
> to compare the areas of strength.
It had struck me that some names did indeed seem 'ethnic' - for want if
a better word.
> I would guess that the Ironmongers might have more natives than the
> Mercers, based on presentday distribution and on land qualities, but
> someone more expert could get a lot out of your tabulation. I will send
> you a copy of a modern listing of the Hearthmoney Rolls; I have a good
> part of Derry. If you could sort out which parishes were in which
> estate, you could add in the 1660s distribution too.
Problem with lots of these analyses is that you have to do them to see
of they are useful! Most, so far, have been a little disappointing.
> I will type out Anne Torrens' Exchequer Bill; my notes are in pencil.
.. snipped ..
Yes. Interesting. On its own it says not much that we don't know, but
taken against then current social standards, it's indicative.
> So! They could be her own sons, reneging on will provisions, particularly
> since it seems that she was aged; a second wife would likely have been
> younger than her man, and possibly only middle aged at his death; but
> I don't know if matters would have got to that head, particularly since
> two sons were refusing to pay upkeep. I could imagine that one son
> could have been estranged from his mother, and the other would have been
> in her good books, but two brothers together against a mother seems
> uncharacteristic. Unless things were different then than now, I think
> the country wouldn't have let two sons neglect duties to an aged mother;
> there would have been community pressure.This would have been much less
> the case for a stepmother. If she was a second wife, and in old age by
> 1780, ten years after Alexander died, then it looks as if Alexander
> could have been very aged at his death.
All we know about Alex, Arch and Alex indicate that they were well
respected presumably elder citizens.
> And he seems to have been Aghadowey treasurer for many years also.
1743-1761. At what age would a person have become treasurer? He's likely
to have been at least 45 I should guess.
> Say born 1690? The other question it raises; it seems from this as if
> the farm was not divided between James and Alexander;
Yes: why did he leave the household effects etc to the youngest?
Would not these normally go to the oldest?
"To my youngest son Alexander all my goods, horses, cows and household
furniture, save one cow to my son James"
We don't know how many 'all my goods, horses, cows and household' there
were, but doesn't it look like he's leaving most of it to Alex? Why? James
is clearly still around.
I guess there's a good possibility that James has either another house
- I think unlikely or a job which takes him out of the area! So he could
well be a linen buyer. Yet he had a family. As he didn't get the house
presumably he didn't need it / wasn't in a position to use the farm. So
he must have had gainful employment elsewhere.
> there are two T. households in Mullahinch in the 1821 census. Is
> Elizabeth aged 62 in a house in Mullahinch apparently landless the widow
> of Alexander? Living in a cottage which had originally been Anne's? How
> did or where did James T. make a living thereafter? He seems to have
> been in good circumstances. I suppose he might have got a farm with his
> wife whoever she was. Are there any Jameses knocking about apparently
> unconnected to anyone else? He was probably dead by 1821, unfortunately,
> since he might have been born even before say 1740. Presumably Alexander
> in Mullahinch was son of Alexander; was Elizabeth his mother, or the
> wife of his uncle James? There was a James T. a linen buyer....He can't
> be either of the labourer James T.s in the 1821 census; they are too
What do we know of James T. the linen buyer?
If Alex (d. 1771) was b 1690, James would have been born not before 1715
or so, would be 65 in 1780! Hardly likely, they seem much younger
in 1780. So Alex (1771) married late! Which makes it unlikely Anne's a
second wife, but she would most likely be younger.
James was married with child in 1771, so born before 1750. So no
younger than 30 in 1780. Anne's old and infirm. 60+? b. before 1720.
It's looking like a late family: I can't definitely see 2 marriages, but
can't rule it out.
> Yes, the garden is off my conscience until spring; some time for this
> stuff for a month or two!
I leave the gardening to Mary! Gardening never was my thing. I like
things to stay done. Gardens don't!
Richard Torrens - torrens@xxxxxxxxx
Torrens families Genealogical site http://www.4QD.co.uk/torrens/
Torrens Mailing list:
<A HREF="mailto:torrens-l@xxxxxxxxx"> Subject: Subscribe