Saturday, 4 April 2015

Keeping it in the Family

Last week, when the names of my fourth-great grandparents, William and Hannah Daly, were discovered, I immediately went looking for a baptism record for their daughter, Jane Daly, born in or around the 1820s, possibly in Dublin.  Jane had married Francis Byrne in the Pro-Cathedral, in Dublin, in 1846. I didn't find Jane's baptism, sadly, or with it, Hannah's maiden name.

But, I did find a William and Hannah Daly, listed as the parents of Richard Daly, baptised in the Pro-Cathedral in 1818. They were also the parents of Michael Daly, baptised there in 1821 and Ann Daly in 1828. Richard was already known to me, having married into our family, and, as such, his parents, William and Hannah, are already included in my family-tree. Richard married Sarah Jane McGrane, the younger sister of Margaret McGrane. Margaret McGrane married Jane Daly's son, Francis Byrne. 

Could Richard Daly have been Jane Daly's brother, making his parents my fourth great-grandparents? They were seemingly in the right place, in the right parish, around the right time. 

And, keeping it in the family ran in this family… Francis Byrne's brother-in-law, Michael McGrane, married Kate Devine, the sister of Francis's daughter-in-law. Check out Uncle Michael married Aunt Kate for that story. His daughter, Mary Anne Byrne, married William Vickers who was the younger brother of James Vickers, married to Francis’s sister-in-law, Alice McGrane. Then, his daughter Margaret Byrne married  James Fay, the widower of his other daughter, Jane Byrne. It really was a tangled web.


On this basis, why should Francis’s other sister-in-law, Sarah Jane McGrane, not have married his 'would-be' uncle, Richard Daly?  

I can, perhaps, give you one reason why Richard should not have married Sarah Jane McGrane. Richard Daly was a widower, over forty years older than Sarah Jane, when they married on 30 July 1879, and Sarah Jane was still shy of her eighteenth birthday - an unlikely match, even in those times. But, marry they did, nonetheless, and on their marriage register, Richard’s parents were named as William Daly and Hannah Dillon. 

So, if Jane and Richard were siblings, this marriage record would confirm the maiden name of my fourth-great-grandmother, Hannah Dillon - making it a theory very much worth proving.

To help those of you confused with this myriad of names, but familiar with the family, after Richard Daly died, Sarah married Christopher Teeling, and became the mother of the well-remembered, Frank Teeling. And, for those, who remain hopelessly lost, suffice to say, I'm thinking, the descendants of my newly found fourth great-grandparents, may have already been known to me, as the Daly family, from Jane Place.

The question is, were there two separate couples named William and Hannah Daly on this one branch of my family-tree?  I don’t know the answer yet, maybe there were, but, as we've just seen, ‘keeping it in the family ran in this family’. So maybe - just maybe - Richard Daly was my third great-granduncle, as well as being the first husband of my second-great-grandaunt.

Before she emigrated to New York, Jane (Daly) Byrne lived at 8 Upper Jane Place. She was recorded at this address when her son Charles married Mary McCarthy, in 1878.  At this time, her hypothetical brother, Richard Daly, lived just ten doors down, at number 18, on this same little street, containing just twenty-six cottages. Well, you know how often, in genealogical research, neighbours turn out to have been family!

So, I now have a potential new granny – Hannah Dillon – how about we try that on for size… and figure out if it fits.

It's a Family Neighbourhood!

Main source: Church records on IrishGenealogy.ie 
Image: Pixabay.

.……………. 
© 2015 Black Raven Genealogy

2 comments:

  1. Dara, I hope this all come together for you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That would be nice, Colleen; seems it might take a while.

    ReplyDelete