One Kelly family, in Wales.

[Wickerman]

Here I am looking for Limerick born Scots guards, Welsh born Scots Guards, continuing the research with individual criteria and Wickers is still not bloody satisfied!

Anyone might think you don't feel appreciated, well rest assured my dear your efforts are very much appreciated.

When I get back from the UK I'll be renewing my subscriptions and diving back into this Geneology too, so less questions...


Regards, Jon S.

[Debra A]

Precisely Jon...and I think this is actually where Debs is coming from...whether we like it or not, an awful lot of research HAS been done, and to no avail...

Chris Scott's been very thorough indeed in researching MJK (I really would recommend his book)...there aren't many avenues left, beyond those requiring some lateral thinking.

Debra is I think the last chance we have...and I believe that she, like me and loads of others, thinks MJK is such a construct of lies as to be almost untraceable...research such as she is undertaking can, after all, prove certain things by being negative as well as positive...yes?

Sorry Debs if I'm mis-stating where you're coming from, but it's the way I read what you say...

Every good wish

Dave

Thanks, Dave. Spot on!

Here I am looking for Limerick born Scots guards, Welsh born Scots Guards, continuing the research with individual criteria and Wickers is still not bloody satisfied!

[Cogidubnus]

Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from.
Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon

Fear not...I know exactly where you're coming from!

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Precisely Jon...and I think this is actually where Debs is coming from...whether we like it or not, an awful lot of research HAS been done, and to no avail...

Indeed Dave.
My recollections go back to the days of Mark King & Andy & Sue Parlour, but I've never kept an ongoing 'file' on what has been established or proved wrong.

Chris Scott's been very thorough indeed in researching MJK (I really would recommend his book)...there aren't many avenues left, beyond those requiring some lateral thinking.

Agreed again, but as more records become available the pursuit must also continue. My major concern is always that without some criteria to enable us to distinguish one Mary Kelly from another then the search potentially lacks direction.

If nothing fits, or if we cannot agree on what is deemed viable as criteria then all we are left with is a name, and by itself the name is as good as worthless as it may not even be genuine.

Any criteria we use can distinguish a particular person regardless of the name, but the name cannot function as a distinguishing feature without criteria.
Sadly, most of our search fields are name based.

Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from.
Regards, Jon S.

[Cogidubnus]

So how could you recognize her?

Precisely Jon...and I think this is actually where Debs is coming from...whether we like it or not, an awful lot of research HAS been done, and to no avail...

Chris Scott's been very thorough indeed in researching MJK (I really would recommend his book)...there aren't many avenues left, beyond those requiring some lateral thinking.

Debra is I think the last chance we have...and I believe that she, like me and loads of others, thinks MJK is such a construct of lies as to be almost untraceable...research such as she is undertaking can, after all, prove certain things by being negative as well as positive...yes?

Sorry Debs if I'm mis-stating where you're coming from, but it's the way I read what you say...

Every good wish

Dave

[Wickerman]

I couldn't begin to set one,that's why,Wick.
Maybe she grew up competing with 6 sisters and hated it and thought in her next life she might like to have the protection of 6 big brothers instead? Perhaps she had one brother in reality, so he became Henry,the one who stood out, the only one with a name, the soldier?
Is the real truth that all we really know about Barnett's MJK is that she was a woman born c 1864, give or take a few years either way?
I honestly don't know.

So how could you recognize her?

(thats just a rhetorical question, I don't expect an answer)


And as a final comment, if Hubert is described as "deceased", I'm done with this line of enquiry, I promise

All the best, Jon S.

[Debra A]

I've dropped David a message to ask.

My thanks too, Paul. I keep missing your posts!

[Debra A]

Debs.
I set my criteria in the absence of anyone coming forward with suggestions.
You do recall basically assessing the problem yourself? To which I responded in this post..
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=466



I had asked you for "what direction to follow", essentially for your opinion, assuming we throw out most of the details we have inherited.
Obviously some should be kept, like her claiming to be Irish & moving to Wales cannot be easily abandoned. Neither are we at liberty to choose any age for MJK, we are obliged to look for a woman no younger than 20 nor older than 30, so a very broad window for her birth could be 1858-1868.
Seeing as "Limerick" has not offered anything promising (as far as I know) what else do you think relevant?

I couldn't begin to set one,that's why,Wick.
Maybe she grew up competing with 6 sisters and hated it and thought in her next life she might like to have the protection of 6 big brothers instead? Perhaps she had one brother in reality, so he became Henry,the one who stood out, the only one with a name, the soldier?
Is the real truth that all we really know about Barnett's MJK is that she was a woman born c 1864, give or take a few years either way?
I honestly don't know.

[Wickerman]

I've dropped David a message to ask.

Thankyou Paul, lets hope we can resolve the 'deceased' issue once and for all.

Best Wishes , Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Jon,I'm sorry but this discussion is getting a little bit silly.
You set the 'basic' criteria of MJKs story yourself.

Debs.
I set my criteria in the absence of anyone coming forward with suggestions.
You do recall basically assessing the problem yourself? To which I responded in this post..
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=466

What If I think one of the basics should be that she was born in Limerick, I've set my own subjective basic criteria and your Brymbo Mary doesn't fit it.

I had asked you for "what direction to follow", essentially for your opinion, assuming we throw out most of the details we have inherited.
Obviously some should be kept, like her claiming to be Irish & moving to Wales cannot be easily abandoned. Neither are we at liberty to choose any age for MJK, we are obliged to look for a woman no younger than 20 nor older than 30, so a very broad window for her birth could be 1858-1868.
Seeing as "Limerick" has not offered anything promising (as far as I know) what else do you think relevant?

And yes, to answer an earlier question, I have my grandfather's marriage certificate where his father is listed as 'Deceased'.
So, this is the detail we need to see on the "Mary Jones" marriage certificate, regardless who chooses to take it on belief.
To be right, David Knott should have published all the relevant paperwork for peer review in order to firmly establish his conclusions. And he may have, but I have not heard from anyone who can confirm it exists.

All the best, Jon S.

[Debra A]

In the The Scotsman article we get the context. Barnett did not suggest this one sister lived at home.

"She told me about her sister, who was respectable and lived with her aunt, following her occupation. That was going from place to place selling things."

The precise number of siblings at home is only a guide. We cannot say how many were living at home when MJK left to live in Cardiff(?) or wherever. And, we only know the number who were present in April for the Census.
The overall number of siblings does matter because clearly if any MJK-candidate has only one or two siblings then she does not meet the criteria.




Are you saying you would not be willing to accept the possibility that another Hubert Kelly might have existed who's records are not preserved, yet you are willing to accept another MJK-candidate might have existed who was not captured in the same census?

We both know there isn't another Mary Kelly who meets the very basic criteria. So if we throw out the criteria, in whole or in part, we could end up by selecting a Mary Kelly who only meets what we prefer to accept, and that must be avoided.

Although Barnett does specifically state that "Kelly" was her maiden name, we might seriously need to abandon this line of inquiry.

Regards, Jon S.

Jon,I'm sorry but this discussion is getting a little bit silly.
You set the 'basic' criteria of MJKs story yourself. Isn't it you, therefore, who is picking and choosing details to make Brymbo Mary fit MJKs story?
What If I think one of the basics should be that she was born in Limerick, I've set my own subjective basic criteria and your Brymbo Mary doesn't fit it.

Like I said.I'm satisfied by the marriage record and subsequent census entries that Brymbo Mary married Griffith Jones and lived happily ever after and was not murdered in Miller's Court in 1888.

[Wickerman]

I thought we were talking numbers. Six or seven brothers and one sister is what we are told isn't it?

Barnett talked about Mary Jane Kelly's one sister who traveled around selling something or other, with an aunt.

In the The Scotsman article we get the context. Barnett did not suggest this one sister lived at home.

"She told me about her sister, who was respectable and lived with her aunt, following her occupation. That was going from place to place selling things."

The precise number of siblings at home is only a guide. We cannot say how many were living at home when MJK left to live in Cardiff(?) or wherever. And, we only know the number who were present in April for the Census.
The overall number of siblings does matter because clearly if any MJK-candidate has only one or two siblings then she does not meet the criteria.

I am satisfied that Mary Ann Kelly,daughter of Hubert Kelly b c 1864 in Ballinasloe, Galway was not Barnett's MJK but instead married Griffith Jones in 1886 and is traceable in the census right up until 1911....I must be too easily pleased.

Are you saying you would not be willing to accept the possibility that another Hubert Kelly might have existed who's records are not preserved, yet you are willing to accept another MJK-candidate might have existed who was not captured in the same census?

We both know there isn't another Mary Kelly who meets the very basic criteria. So if we throw out the criteria, in whole or in part, we could end up by selecting a Mary Kelly who only meets what we prefer to accept, and that must be avoided.

Although Barnett does specifically state that "Kelly" was her maiden name, we might seriously need to abandon this line of inquiry.

Regards, Jon S.

[Debra A]

And exactly how many Hubert Kellys were there in Wales ,Johnnie?

[Wickerman]

Jon, have you never seen a marriage certificate with the word deceased written after either the bride or groom's fathers name? It's a legal requirement to include the name and occupation of both the bride and groom's fathers (unless unknown) in a marriage entry. We aren't talking about a deceased father signing a certificate or anything!
I can't see what difference it makes if David knew Hubert was dead or not. If the entry says her father is Hubert, then I'll bet my life savings it says 'deceased after his name.

Debbie!
The issue is not what it should say, but what it does say.

A Hubert listed as 'Father' without 'deceased' scuttles the whole argument, as this is obviously a different family.

I'm saying, if David was not aware that Brymbo-Mary's father had died, yet the father was given as Hubert, then equally this is the wrong family, but David would not have known.
Therefore seeing the word 'deceased' is the crucial element, always assuming the father is given as Hubert, which it must be.

Someone needs to see this certificate and remark on the signature for 'father' to settle the issue.
Then we can all continue to look for this 2nd "hypothetical" Mary Kelly to fit with the basic criteria

You know how many Mary Kelly's there are, born in Ireland between 1861-1866, and moved to Wales with their family before becoming 16?, and having several siblings, I know you know, and I know you know there isn't a list of them.

Regards, Jon S.

[PaulB]

I thought we were talking numbers. Six or seven brothers and one sister is what we are told isn't it?

Barnett talked about Mary Jane Kelly's one sister who traveled around selling something or other, with an aunt.

Just for interest Bridget married Edwin Senior in (off the top of my head) 1878 and in 1881 was living in Newcastle with her husband.

You sound like you are convinced and won't let this go without a fight,Jon.

I am satisfied that Mary Ann Kelly,daughter of Hubert Kelly b c 1864 in Ballinasloe, Galway was not Barnett's MJK but instead married Griffith Jones in 1886 and is traceable in the census right up until 1911....I must be too easily pleased.

Wasn't there a sister on the stage or something?