Mary Kelly. Where Else Can We Look?

[Paddy]

William Henry Burys parentage

Found the following info on Casebook...
William Henry Bury was born in Hill Street, Stourbridge, Worcestershire, on 25 May 1859. Little is known of his early life, except that his mother, Mary, had become insane after suffering from depression, and after a nervous breakdown was confined to Worcester County and City lunatic asylum in May 1860, where she remained until her death at the relatively young age of 33, on 30 March 1864.
William's father, Henry, was a hardworking fishmonger

It was his sisters' marriage by the looks of it.......although the certificate did not mention that her father Henry was deceased

Pat...................................

[miss marple]

Another mystery solved. Paddy, have you seen the original certificate or a transcription? The transcription may not mention the father was deceased but might on the certificate.

Miss Marple

[Livia]

The original register does not include the notation
"deceased" for Henry Bury.

With only two exceptions, all the other marriages
for St Paul's Birmingham for the years 1872 through 1881,
also do not indicate the condition of the bride and groom's fathers.

There's a sample form filled in, in the front of the register
book which only lists the father's name and occupation, so
this may be why this bit of information was not included.

The two registers which do include "deceased" by the
father's name, appear to have been written by a
visiting vicar.

[Paddy]

Paddy, have you seen the original certificate or a transcription?

Hi Miss Marple, Yes I have seen the certificate on ancestry as they now have Birmingham marriages and banns.
I remember posting a link on casebook some time ago, that showed a report from the asylum about Burys mum, if anyone is interested. Very Sad...

forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7113&page=4

Pat...............................

[Paddy]

A Mary Kelly in 1871

This Mary Kelly was born in Glamorgan Wales but living in Clevedon Street, Marylebone London....She is a niece.
Not sure if you can see this as I have had to crop it a bit as it wouldn't upload....The street number was 3 or 8
The head of house is a Henry Mcsweeny and his wife Margaret comes from Ireland
Pat........................

[Prosector]

Thanks, Sally. I can't imagine that a disinterment will ever be allowed but who knows? The irony is that there must be a family somewhere whose great-great aunt Mary (or whatever) disappeared in the 1880's and was never heard from again. I think our best hope is that someone will one day have a 'Eureka' moment and put his or her ancestor's name into the frame.

As a matter of interest I did apply to the Ministry of Justice for permission to exhume Marie Jeanette Kelly's body for purposes of obtaining DNA for identification purposes. I did so on behalf of someone who I have very good reason to believe is her closest living relative and who gave permission for the exhumation. There is actually no problem about getting permission as long as you provide good enough evidence of relationship (which I think I did). The problem we encountered was that she was buried in a public grave which has been re-used countless times since and, apart from having to get permission from the relatives of all those later burials, which would be nigh impossible, it is likely that all of the remains will now be so mixed up as to be impossible to identify the correct one. Furthermore the current headstone may be anything up to ten feet from the actual grave site.

Prosector

[lynn cates]

bones

Hello Prosector. There may have been some damage to her bones, in which case identification may be facilitated.

Cheers.
LC

[Prosector]

Yes but the problem is that the cemetery superintendent thinks that we would need to dig up an area at least twenty feet square and there might be fifty or more burials in a public plot of that size. An attempt would have to be made to trace the living relatives of all those people and get their permission or show that they had no living relatives. A pretty tall order.Then you have the problem of DNA contamination from all the other bodies. I have had extensive discussions with specialist exhumation undertakers and forensic scientists and it looks pretty hopeless. It's not a question of cost because many of them would do it for nothing but it just seems to be an impossible task.

Prosector

[Wickerman]

Hello Prosector. There may have been some damage to her bones, in which case identification may be facilitated.

Cheers.
LC

Just look for the nearest grape vine.....

[lynn cates]

identification

Hello Prosector. Thanks.

I was dealing only with the identification aspect you had brought up.

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

G'day Prosector

If there were 50 bodies in the dig you would also have to choose a bone [say the skull] and test each and every one until you have a match.

The problem as I see it is that I believe that skulls are not great for DNA testing because of so little marrow, but if you tested any other bone, ie a thigh, which might be better for DNA testing it wouldn't prove a lot would it?

Other than that the person you have in mind was related to someone in the dig and unless we knew the details of each person exhumed it doesn't solve a lot it seems.

[Prosector]

I understand from forensic pathologists that I have spoken to that the best source of DNA from remains that have been buried for a long time and may be in poor condition (or even totally destroyed) is likely to be a tooth, particularly a substantial one like a molar. But the main problem would be tracing the descendants of the other burials and getting their permissions.

Prosector

[Sam Flynn]

There may have been some damage to her bones

Almost certainly, Lynn.

[Bridewell]

I've been doing a little more research around my thought that Barnett might have misunderstood Limerigg as Limerick (Limerigg being a small village about 20 miles east of Glasgow). Mary Kelly herself is the proverbial needle in a haystack, as everyone knows, so I looked for a John Kelly with a Scottish military connection. Still nothing connected to the Scots Guards, but I did find a John Kelly, born June 1863 who enlisted in the Royal Scots Fusiliers on 10th December 1885:-

On the 1881 census the guy I think is him was living at 28, Grace Street, Glasgow Barony with:

John Kelly (42) Engine Keeper (looks like this was in an iron works)
Susan Kelly (41)
William Kelly (21) Coppersmith
John Kelly (17) Iron Turner
Jane Kelly (14) Machinist
Thomas Kelly (11)
Samuel Kelly (8)
Jane Scott (60) (Mother-in-Law to Head of Household).

No mention of a Mary however. I then checked the birth records and found that a John Kelly and a Susan Scott registered the birth of a Mary Kelly who was born on 5th February 1862. This girl isn't listed with the family in the 1871 census but, as the Kelly and Scott surnames both match, I am pretty sure this is the same couple. I'm tempted to conclude that this Mary Kelly died young but unfortunately the Scottish death records don't seem to be accessible through Ancestry for some reason. I did find a Mary Kelly who was living with her brother, Thomas (Foundry Worker), in the same area (Glasgow Barony), but this Mary is a Warehouse Girl aged 13. I suppose it's just conceivable that a brother might lie about his sister's age in order to get her out and earning but could a 9-year-old pass for 13? I'd like to pursue this (in preference to that infernal shawl!). Does anyone have access to the Scottish death records before I commit too much time to it?

[GUT]

I've been doing a little more research around my thought that Barnett might have misunderstood Limerigg as Limerick (Limerigg being a small village about 20 miles east of Glasgow). Mary Kelly herself is the proverbial needle in a haystack, as everyone knows, so I looked for a John Kelly with a Scottish military connection. Still nothing connected to the Scots Guards, but I did find a John Kelly, born June 1863 who enlisted in the Royal Scots Fusiliers on 10th December 1885:-

On the 1881 census the guy I think is him was living at 28, Grace Street, Glasgow Barony with:

John Kelly (42) Engine Keeper (looks like this was in an iron works)
Susan Kelly (41)
William Kelly (21) Coppersmith
John Kelly (17) Iron Turner
Jane Kelly (14) Machinist
Thomas Kelly (11)
Samuel Kelly (8)
Jane Scott (60) (Mother-in-Law to Head of Household).

No mention of a Mary however. I then checked the birth records and found that a John Kelly and a Susan Scott registered the birth of a Mary Kelly who was born on 5th February 1862. This girl isn't listed with the family in the 1871 census but, as the Kelly and Scott surnames both match, I am pretty sure this is the same couple. I'm tempted to conclude that this Mary Kelly died young but unfortunately the Scottish death records don't seem to be accessible through Ancestry for some reason. I did find a Mary Kelly who was living with her brother, Thomas (Foundry Worker), in the same area (Glasgow Barony), but this Mary is a Warehouse Girl aged 13. I suppose it's just conceivable that a brother might lie about his sister's age in order to get her out and earning but could a 9-year-old pass for 13? I'd like to pursue this (in preference to that infernal shawl!). Does anyone have access to the Scottish death records before I commit too much time to it?

G'day Bridewell

One of the best matches I've yet to see.

Born in '62 so 26 in '88 when MJK was said to be 25.

In 71 could she have been staying with other family ie Grand parents Uncle etc?

I don't currently have access to death records for Scotland but know from experience that sometimes people are just missing off them anyway, especially when they die very young.