Re: 1796

[Lunney Family <jglunney@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Richard, DID Lavonne TYPE all this in?? What sort of idea of holidays
does the woman have? I presume you just cut and pasted, but she must have
spent days at it!! Still, it's a wonderful resource;I see lots of familiar
names as well as Torrenses; I see for instance Susanna Gray, who is
probably the same girl who was accused  by her neighbour of having murdered
her illegitimate child; the papers are in PRONI. So lots of material to
help other families with their queries; thank you for sending it, I will
have to get back in touch with Lavonne

I will print outthe Tuttle paper and think about it.  Do you think I
should for the list transcribe the material I got from that American
woman; the letter which RM Torrance put into his book but elided the
reference to co. antrim?  Tom Fetters might think I was getting at
him....

Re the LDS site. It is a pity you can't get at it. It has some real
records, and would be valuable for those alone--you might be able to follow
up your Longs, etc.  Some of the rest of the stuff might be invention, and
some of it is besmirched by contact with SgtHugh--and some of it is
completely mystifying. I can't imagine where it came from. The trouble with
the non-official records is that they load material from Mormons finding
ancestors to baptize, and perhaps they don't care too much if they are
THEIR ancestors or not. I was hoping you could have a look at the Aarons
and discuss it with me; they are stranger than I at first appreciated.
Viz:

There are several different records for Aaron T.s , diff. surname
spellings; presumably entered in LDS records by different people; perhaps
from published sources, perhaps not

Aaron T. b. Coolnaman 1723 died 1789 Chester Pennsylvania; married
Susanna Finley of Mullaghbrack of Armagh in 1750; had children in
Armagh as I note= d
in my letter to you. How he got to Mullaghbrack, mind you.

Aaron T. b. 1722 in Coolnaman d. 1795 in Lexington, Ky. His father is said
to be Albert,and Gf the redoubtable Sgt Hugh

Still withme?

Aaron T. b. abt 1665 in Scotland, died in Coolaman. Wife was Sally. Brother
was Hugh 1665-1712. Aaron and Hugh's father who lived and presumably died
in Scotland was Thomas b. abt 1639, wife Sally. b. abt 1643. Thomas had two
sisters, Peggy b. 1643 and Mary b. 1641. Their father and mother were James
and Mary; James b. abt 1600

So what do you make of all this? Where could it have come from? Does any of
it look even slightly likely? Are the Aarons internally consistent? Could
it possibly be that the name Aaron and the name Alexander are for some
reason interchangeable in the 17th C? Or should I pretend I haven't seen
any of it, and delete the bookmark to the site?

Two final points for tonight. I'll type you out some of the more ordinary
marriages etc tomorrow or whenever.

The site has Coolnaman Hughs, but vitiated by Sgt Hugh. However, there is
one Hugh, noted only as from Londonderry, said to be a twin; if I read it
right he might be Hugh the third in line  it says Torrance, Hugh L iii
twin. Anyhow. b.5 November 1745 d. 23 Jun 1830 Manordale Farm,
Westmorland, Pa. Married in Ireland 28 Feb. 1797 Mary Boreland. The
detail in this makes it somewhat more convincing. Can we snaffle this
Hugh?  Perhaps a descendant of Caheny???

3 October 1697 in St Michan's in Dublin Robert Terance, whose father was
Andrew, married Sarah. This is from the register, so is presumably okay.

There are several early Drumachose marriages, which I can transcribe for
the list, if our drumachose men haven't seen them. Also marriages and
births from church registers and from the Registrar General; MANY T.s even
locally that I don't have from registers and land records.

Is there an Internet cafe near you?

To reply to one of your points; I don't know that I will accept that the £2
to Robert was to Robert in America; it doesn't say that it was to go to
Robert in America as other similar bequests in other wills do, and there is
no reason to suppose that Alexander would pick out one of Hugh's children
when that child was so far away. I think there is room for a son of another
brother, and I think Annie's theory is worth keeping in mind. Certainly
when I see how many T.s there are in LDS records that I didn't know
anything about even in the 19th C., I'm not going to be too surprised if
after all our material is nowhere near complete in the 18th C.
Discouraged....
More to follow. All the best Linde