One Kelly family, in Wales.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Wickerman]

Hubert Kelly, deceased, perhaps?

We'll have to wait and see...

[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.

[Debra A]

In a worse case scenario (for Brymbo Mary=MJK), if the identity cannot be established, then do we assume there are two Mary Kelly's which have identical albeit very basic "bio"s to our MJK?

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

[Debra A]

Interesting choice of words "a Mary Kelly", if the connection to the Brymbo family was established.
Hubert Kelly died in 1883?, it will be interesting to see who's name is on the 1886 marriage certificate under 'Father'.

Hubert Kelly, deceased, perhaps?

[Wickerman]

I just had a message from Jenni Shelden.

Research into this family formed part of her talk at Cardiff on the"Uncle Jack" book. This is the relevant part from Jenni's presentation:

"David Knott suggested that the Mary Kelly whom Williams and Price state was the same one as the final Ripper victim, was alive and well at the time of the 1891 census. He found a Mary Kelly marrying a Griffin Jones in 1886 ....

Interesting choice of words "a Mary Kelly", if the connection to the Brymbo family was established.
Hubert Kelly died in 1883?, it will be interesting to see who's name is on the 1886 marriage certificate under 'Father'.

On Casebook David subsequently said on 2nd Feb 2006 “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,

I had not seen our 'Brymbo' Mary carrying a middle name, don't we just have Mary Kelly?, neither Ann nor Jane?

It is refreshing to see that Paul holds reservations.

In a worse case scenario (for Brymbo Mary=MJK), if the identity cannot be established, then do we assume there are two Mary Kelly's which have identical albeit very basic "bio"s to our MJK?
Finding one was astonishing enough, arguing that there must be two is staggering considering that over the past 20+ years of geneological research this hypothetical 2nd MJK has remained totally elusive.

Who said geneology was boring....

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul.
I'd already sent Jenni a message earlier this morning asking her the very same thing- if the marriage certificate had been seen, before I posted here.
Just waiting for a reply, but reading the message Jenni sent me yesterday it just struck me that it probably had been seen, given Dave knowing the exact church and exact date involved, which are not given in the marriage indexes.

Debs Rules, O.K.!
You are ahead of me all the way.

[Debra A]

Hi Paul.
I'd already sent Jenni a message earlier this morning asking her the very same thing- if the marriage certificate had been seen, before I posted here.
Just waiting for a reply, but reading the message Jenni sent me yesterday it just struck me that it probably had been seen, given Dave knowing the exact church and exact date involved, which are not given in the marriage indexes.

[PaulB]

Oh, right.
I was thinking that because David Knott gave the exact date and place of the marrigae that he had the marriage certificate and seen Mary's father's name listed or something similar? Exact dates aren't shown in the marriage indexes so where did the date of February 27th come from?

Hi Debs,
He may have seen the marriage certificate for all I know, and as he has the date I assume he did, and in which case there would be no question about the identification, but I am not sure of that, hence my sort of querying it. All we need is confirmation, which Jen can probably provide. If David isn't around to do it himself.
Paul

[Debra A]

I don't think David Knott firmly established that Brymbo Mary and Mary the Beer were one and the same, though, but he did enough to make that part of the Uncle Jack story less than proven, which given the other gaping deficiencies of Williams theory was all that mattered. We now know, however, that Mary the Beer was alive in 1911, helping Griffith to run the Union Tavern in Wrexham, and that she gave her birthplace as Ballinasloe, which is where Brymbo Mary's father, Hubert, appears to have lived before coming with his family to Wales. The identification looks tight.

Oh, right.
I was thinking that because David Knott gave the exact date and place of the marrigae that he had the marriage certificate and seen Mary's father's name listed or something similar? Exact dates aren't shown in the marriage indexes so where did the date of February 27th come from?