One Kelly family, in Wales.

[Wickerman]

In the sense that they both belonged to Irish families named Kelly, who settled in Wales?

And, a birth between 1863-5, and ...the number and gender of her siblings, are significantly important parts to the story.

[Wickerman]

Hubert Kelly, deceased, perhaps?

We'll have to wait and see...

[Debra A]

And, a birth between 1863-5, and ...the number and gender of her siblings, are significantly important parts to the story.

The sisters are one too many by my reckoning?

[Debra A]

We'll have to wait and see...

This is David's original post on the subject that Jenni quoted from in her message to me:

dknott
2nd February 2006, 07:53 PM
Jenni,

In your article you referred to a suggestion that I made on a previous casebook thread regarding the Denbigh Mary Kelly possibly having married a Griffith Jones in 1886, and still being alive in 1901.

I have checked it out, and this is correct. The Mary Kelly identified in Uncle Jack from the 1881 census was actually a Mary Ann Kelly, not a Mary Jane Kelly, and she was married to Griffith Jones at St Marys Catholic Church on February 27th 1886. They were still together at the time of the 1901 census.

(Although I realise that inadequate research is the least of the charges being levelled at the authors!!)

David


Sounds very much to me like Dave had the certificate, or saw the marriage entry, given he knew the exact place and date of the marriage and he says himself he's 'checked it out' and found it to be correct since his earlier suggestion Mary married Griffith Jones. These details do not appear in marriage indexes.

[PaulB]

This is David's original post on the subject that Jenni quoted from in her message to me:

dknott
2nd February 2006, 07:53 PM
Jenni,

In your article you referred to a suggestion that I made on a previous casebook thread regarding the Denbigh Mary Kelly possibly having married a Griffith Jones in 1886, and still being alive in 1901.

I have checked it out, and this is correct. The Mary Kelly identified in Uncle Jack from the 1881 census was actually a Mary Ann Kelly, not a Mary Jane Kelly, and she was married to Griffith Jones at St Marys Catholic Church on February 27th 1886. They were still together at the time of the 1901 census.

(Although I realise that inadequate research is the least of the charges being levelled at the authors!!)

David


Sounds very much to me like Dave had the certificate, or saw the marriage entry, given he knew the exact place and date of the marriage and he says himself he's 'checked it out' and found it to be correct since his earlier suggestion Mary married Griffith Jones. These details do not appear in marriage indexes.

I've dropped David a message to ask.

[Wickerman]

The sisters are one too many by my reckoning?

"The sister who was fond of her" tends to suggest Barnett was talking about the elder one, Bridget, if were backing the right horse. He may have not known any details about the younger one, or MJK may have not told Barnett assuming MJK left home shortly after the 1881 census?
Nevertheless, the father dying in 1883 causes a wrinkle in the story that MJK's father came looking for her in Pennington St.

Sounds very much to me like Dave had the certificate, or saw the marriage entry, given he knew the exact place and date of the marriage and he says himself he's 'checked it out' and found it to be correct since his earlier suggestion Mary married Griffith Jones. These details do not appear in marriage indexes.

Do we have any indication that David knew the father had died before this marriage in 1886? It would be interesting to see how the entry is written on the certificate. This detail could be seen as the dealbreaker, if the entry indicates whether the father is dead or not to help determine if this was the Brymbo Mary.

Regards, Jon S.

[Debra A]

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.

[Debra A]

"The sister who was fond of her" tends to suggest Barnett was talking about the elder one, Bridget, if were backing the right horse. He may have not known any details about the younger one, or MJK may have not told Barnett assuming MJK left home shortly after the 1881 census?
Nevertheless, the father dying in 1883 causes a wrinkle in the story that MJK's father came looking for her in Pennington St.

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.

[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?

[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.

[Debra A]

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

[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]

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]

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.php?p=217921&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.

[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.