Re: 1796

["Richard Torrens (genealogy)" <torrens@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hullo Linde

I just love the paragraph structure of your informal emails! Luckily
it's easy to sub-divide them here!

> Dear Richard, I'll do a very quick note to catch up. We have had a week
> without a phone and hence no email at home, and I haven't looked at email
> or Internet in UCD-I've hardly been to work, I've been shopping!

I'd assumed the silence was due to Christmas preparations. Irish
Telecom's got to be a better reason!

> The phone came back today; some contract crowd were in laying new cables
> in the area and apparently messed up the existing cabling.

Know all about that: we have about 4 cable ducts running past our
house. One of the contractors cut through an underground electricity
cable. But would you believe that we can't get connected to ANY of the
cable operators. No  access point nearby1

> Do have a good look at the 1796 lists; like how closely Torrens names
> are placed, etc.

Lavonne is very sensitive to layout and order, and accuracy of
proof reading.

I extracted the text from her site already. (Copy attached) and I will
check this against her copies (when they arrive). I believe her order is
correct: some entries are crossed out, either as individual names, or as
complete families. This needs to be indicated on the transcript. Her
HTML has an asterisk before each name. I shall not do quite that but use
an Asterisk or a hash or an X to denote names which are in some way
marked differently, with a key to indicate the differences.

When I put up the Kernohan info, I was not at all sure in what format
people would want it. So I put it up as straight text, which can be
imported into almost any software. I've had no suggestions to make me
change that decision. What do you think?

Basically I think these old docs have to be either annotated text, with
clear indication as to what is transcribed original and what is
annotation, or else a photocopy of the original.

> Yes, your point about later Aarons leading to
> expectations of earlier ones is a good one; as you have said, the naming
> pattern seems to break down in America,

Two possibilities: either it DID break down, or the mix and match
genealogy has obliterated it. I suspect both, but cannot tell the
proportions.

> but presumably the genealogist was still expecting it to be holding,
> and extrapolated backward.

Even without anticipating traditional naming patterns, one would tend to
see one's own names. My father was 'sensitive' to Robert and Hugh.

Fortunately for me, Richard is uncommon in that time period! I would
scarcely believe it if I did see it!

> There may well have been a real Aaron T. from another line, maybe from
> Scotland even, who muddied the waters in America by causing Aaronic
> expectations, and was stitched into what "The Genealogist" seems to have
> regarded as the all-important Culnaman line,

Most probably, but it would be nice to locate them. But we're not that
interested in the yanks are we?

> just as Sgt Hugh was grafted in too.  I would happily agree to a line of
> Alexander and Johns in Carnroe and moving to Culnaman; I had almost written
> an enthusiastic assent, but I remembered in time that I would like to fit in
> Samuel; the Samuel who was whatever he was in Bovedy. Samuel is clearly an
> important name in Culnaman; it is used oftener than John.

Agreed.

> What about having Samuel of Bovedy congregation as resident in Culnaman and as
> son of HMR Hugh, but not having any sons, so that his name doesn't
> propagate in the usual way? Succeeded in Carnroe by John son of
> Alexander, to fit what Annie's lot remembered as a move at some point
> from Carnroe to Culnaman? Is it adequate to start all the known early
> households off if we suggest three sons of HMR Hugh; viz Alexander in
> Carnroe, Samuel in Culnaman, and Hugh in Caheny/Mayoghil?

Quite possible. But as yet we have no real indicators.

Annie suggests that Hugh of Cahenny was not Culnamen's son, but the same
Hugh and that there was another son Hugh, not of Cahenny who was
Mayoghill's father.

I think that if Mayoughill's father looks like Hugh, then it matters not
a lot where he lived!

> Suggest also a father Alexander in Scotland for HMR Hugh.

In Bann we have apparently a line of Hughs. They would have been first
sons. Doesn't say much about Scotland, except that if the Hugh line is
true, at some point the second Hugh was a third son. So if we had Alex,
Sam and Hugh, Hugh call his third son Hugh, starting the line.

Alex's first son seems to be Archibald. Proving that we're short of
data. But we knew that!

> The John who moved to Culnaman would then have had sons Alexander, aka Aaron,
> Samuel, Thomas and John-Jean.

No. Robert's letter says 'My father Requests that if You
Know any thing Concerning his Brothers Sam & Thos. Torrance. ... for he
has Never heard any Acc.t from then Since Before the America war'.

I take this as evidence that there were only two brothers in the states!
There might have been one in Ireland or elsewhere. Or there might have
ben a third American one who was known to be dead. He would have to have
died before the war. Not v. plausible. This is something that RMT
completely overlooked!

> This is maybe a bit over-simplified. We could hardly expect it to be
> as simple as that. More speculation to frill it up a bit?  No reason at
> all why John who moved might not have married a daughter of Samuel's.
> Of course ALexander in Carnroe might have been a brother of HMR Hugh's,
> rather than a son, but that is just something we'll never be sure about.
> Do we need to fit in a Robert aka Albert? 

Neither Robert/Albert not Aaron/Alex belong to us, unless the there is
GOOD evidence to the contrary!

There may have been another Samuel or Thomas, who met up with out Sam
and Thomas and confused the records. If so, these are his brothers.

> This is the kind of speculation that reminds me of a form of Patience
> where you set out all the cards in 4 rows and try to move them into
> numerical sequence.

Yes - but our rules keep changing!

> Re the John before whom the will was proved-I rather think he is a John
> from the Dungiven lot, who produced respectable people-clergymen to
> swear an oath in front of, and probably solicitors' clerks and such.

Wills in these days were witnesses - the witness did not need legal
qualifications? A will still does not need a solicitor today to validate
it! So why does this John need to be a legal eagle?

> One of my friends at work has friends who have produced a database of
> Scots who went to Sweden and Germany in the 17th C.--it's on the
> internet and searchable on the univ. of Aberdeen site; they are still
> adding to it; it has scads of Hamiltons, with biographical and
> genealogical details, but so far no Torrenses.

Interesting. But as we can't get back to Scotland, any Dungiven ancestor
is of academic interest. OK - so you ARE an academic!

> I'd better stop. I don't
> at all mind writing up a N. Derry intro., but NOT BEFORE CHRISTMAS!  I
> or you could drop a note to the Coleraien Hist. Jnl and tell them about
> the mailing list, so they could carry a note about it in the
> journal-that's what I meant about sponsoring it. Inexact terminology!

Right! But I need to get a page on the WWW site, to announce it. Maybe
over the weekend!

-- 
Richard Torrens  - torrens@xxxxxxxxx
Torrens families Genealogical site  http://www.4QD.co.uk/torrens/
Torrens Mailing list: to join, click on the link below.
<mailto:torrens-l@xxxxxxxxx?Subject=subscribe>