The submission of Rory Caoch O’More – 1543

The submission of Rory Caoch O’More reads:

Rory O’More of Lex, brother as he asserts to Kedagh (Roe) O’More, lately deceased, now admitted to the Captainship of the same country by the consent and election of all the noblemen and inhabitants of the country, appeared before us the Deputy Council, and submitted himself to the King.He promises that: –

  1. He will be faithful and liege subject; and he and the other gentlemen of his country will receive their lands from his Highness.
  2. He will reject the Roman Pontiff’s usurped primacy.
  3. He will deliver Kedagh mac Piers mac Melaghlin O’More as his hostage to the Deputy into the hands of Thomas Eustace, Viscount of Baltinglass, for the observance of his agreements and promises, and for the restitution of all damages done to the subjects of the King, during the time of Kedagh O’More’s government.
  4. He will have 72 kerne, horseboys being computed in that number, for the rule of the said country of Leix; and will maintain no other kerne there.
  5. He will rise up with the Lord Deputy in every great journey, called “Hostings.”For any sudden journey of two days and nights he will find 24 horsemen and all his aforesaid kerne; and in every great hosting 8 horsemen and 20 kerne.
  6. Donnamase with the demesne lands, Tymooge and other lands of the late Earl of Kildare in Leix, shall be restored to the King.The demesnes of Donnamase shall be surveyed and their extent declared by indifferent men (as jurors on the Inquisition), and the lands and rents of the said Earl of Kildare by Thomas Wolf senior; and both those lands, and the possessions of (the Nunnery of) Grayne (Graney, Co. Kildare), of the Monasteries of Saint Mary of Dublin, of Connall (Co. Kildare), and of other religious Houses, with the lands of Kyllberry (Co. Kildare), are at the disposition of the tenants and farmers of the King.
  7. When the Lord Deputy requires any Scots (Galloglasses), to be imposed the Counties of Kildare, Kilkenny or Tipperary, the Leix shall support 60 Scots, and shall be exempt from all subsidies for that year.
  8. The King shall have 20 marks yearly as a subsidy.
  9. The Lord Deputy and Council shall have 100 Cows for his (Rory’s) nomination and admission to the Captaincy of the aforesaid Country.
  10. He shall have the goods of his brother Kedagh, by paying Kedagh’s debts, and the profit and produce of all his possessions, saving Kedagh’s wife’s portion, until he be recompensed for the debts which he shall ratify the same; otherwise not.”

This was Rory Caoch O’More son of Connel O’More son of Melaghlin O’More. Doonamasse is the Castle Dunamase.

Indenture, Dated 13th May, 34 Henry VIII.[“Carew Mauscripts,” 1515-74]

From Lord Walter Fitzgerald,the Journal of the County Kildare Archaeological Society, Volume VI . The  edited papers were published in Dublin in 1911.

The Rock of Dunamase

The Rock of Dunamase partially reads:

“Dunamase from prehistoric times was the stronghold and chief residence of the rulers of Leix.About the time of the Christian era there flourished in Ulster a leader of the Red Branch Knights, called Conall Cearnach.the Knights under him waged war against the men of Leinster to enforce the payment of the Burumean tribute.They defeated the Leinstermen at the battle of Ros-naRigh (Rosnaree), and settled Leix, which they divided into seven tribe lands.This Celtic heptarchy was subject to the jurisdiction of an arch-king, claiming descent from Canall Cearnach, and called the O’More, with his chief residence at Dunamase.”Dunamase changed hands several times and “In 1342 Lysaght O’more, of Dunamase was killed by his servant. . . . Two years after his death the O’mores were dipossessed of Dunamase by De Mortimer.”. . . The O’mores controlled it around 1538 and 1542 . . .“In 1642 the Confederate Catholics were in Possession of Dunamase; . . .”

From Lord Walter Fitzgerald,the Journal of the County Kildare Archaeological Society, Volume VI . The  edited papers were published in Dublin in 1911.

When cutting seaweed was a crime – 1843

James Joseph Roche, the Chairman of the magistrates in this case, is the nephew of John Roche, and in 1843 was living in Aghada Hall. He’s Ernest O’Bryen‘s first cousin twice removed.

(Cork Examiner 5/5/1843) –

CLOYNE PETTY SESSIONS – WEDNESDAY – CUTTING SEA-WEED – (FROM OUR REPORTER) – Presiding Magistrate-SAMUEL W. ADAMS, Chairman, JAS. J. ROCHE, R. G. ADAMS, THOMAS G. DURDIN, and JOSEPH HAYNES, Esqrs.

Glengarriff-Harbour-Co-Cork-Ireland-RP-Postcard-0835This being the day appointed by the Magistrates to investigate into the right of the public at large to cut sea-weed on Corkbeg and Trabolgan strands, great numbers of country-people assembled at the Court-house, and appeared most anxious to be present at and be informed as to the result of the trial. At an early hour the Court-house was thronged with listeners, and but for the judicious arrangements made by the magistrates, great inconvenience might have resulted from the vast number present on the occasion.

Besides the Magistrates on the bench several other respectable persons were in attendance, amongst whom were E. B. Roche, Esq., M. P., and Robert U. Penrose Fitzgerald, Esq. 

Bartholomew Dennehy, John Hart, Michael Cotter, Patrick Kirby, Simon Kennedy, William Hart, J. Dennehy, William Cronin, and John Cronin, appeared on the summons of Michael Hallinan to show cause why a penalty not exceeding £5 should not be inflicted on them, under the provisions of the malicious trespass Act, 9 Geo. 4, cap 56, for having cut seaweed on the 13th of April at Corkbeg strand.

Mr. Scannell appeared as Counsel for the complainant, and Mr. Nagle as Agent, and Mr. Walsh appeared on behalf of the defendants. – Mr. Scannell said that this was a prosecution instituted under the , 9 Geo. 4, cap 56, sec. 30, which was framed for the purpose of enabling parties to punish persons for committing a malicious injury who would not be solvent marks for an action in the higher Courts. That section enabled the Magistrates to award a reasonable compensation for the injury sustained, but it should not exceed £5. That Act however, contained a proviso, that the party complained of should not be fined or punished, if he did the act under a reasonable supposition that he was authorised in doing it. Sea Weed was becoming a most valuable property and he was ready to prove Mr. Fitzgerald’s title to the weed growing on the Corkbeg strand, by a patent granted by Charles the II. Mr. Scannell then cited several cases from the 5th Term Reports, Nunn and Walsh and several other law authorities, to prove that the case came within the malicious trespass act.

Carrigline beachMichael Hallinan was called and examined at some length by Mr. Scannell. He proved that the defendant had cut seaweed above low-water mark; he saw them go to the place in boats. Cross-examined by Mr. Walsh – I often saw men cutting weed there for the last 30 years; will not swear that other boats were on the same spot and cut weed, but as long as I remember, I have seen boats coming from Seamount cutting weed below low-water mark; the description of weed they cut was lawn clout; each of those men were cutting lawn clouts on that day; they grow high and dry on the rock when the tide is out and some of them are a foot and some two feet long, the same as ourselves grow (laughter); I did not see slings there on that day, but boys had them the day after. To Mr. Scannell – Power was not looking at the persons cutting the weed within low-water mark nor did he know they were cutting it. To Mr. Walsh – I would not swear that within 30 years Power or his people did not see them cutting the weed.

Maurice Uniack examined by Mr. Scannell – I know the strand under Carlisle over 20 years and the line of rocks lying above low water mark; was taking care of the weed for the late Col. Fitzgerald and when any boats took it, it was against my consent. Cross-examined by Mr. Walsh – I don’t know the spot where those boats were cutting the weed; the people were prevented for the last 20 years from cutting weed there by Colonel Fitzgerald; as I never saw any person cutting weed there who did not pay for it; Mr. Fitzgerald lets the strand early in the season, and any person that cut it, took it from the tenant. To Mr. Scannell – The strand has been let for the last 20 years.

The case for the prosecution having closed, Mr. Walsh put it to the Bench whether they had evidence of Power having the strand from any person or that he let it to Hallinan. The Chairman thought there was not sufficient evidence of it.

John Power proved that he took part of the strand from Mr. Cox for £7 a year, who got it from Mr. Fitzgerald. Cross-examined by Mr. Walsh – I kept part of the strand and let the remainder to Hallinan; they were cutting the weed against my will, but as the boat was not marked, I could not tell the names of the owners. Mr. Cox examined by Mr. Scannell – I know this strand which I took from Mr. Fitzgerald, and let part of it to Power. Cross-examined by Mr. Walsh – There was writing between me and Mr. Fitzgerald, on taking it.

Mr. Scannell then produced a lease which Mr. Walsh contended was but an agreement for a lease and that as the rent was £100, there should be £1 15s. stamp to it. Mr. Scannell stated that it was stamped within the last six days in Dublin. The validity of the lease was allowed after a long argument. Mr. Cox, cross-examined by Mr. Walsh – It was for the purpose of establishing the right I took the strand; I had the strand three years before this prosecution.

Mr. Walsh said that his clients were only summoned last night, and he had not time to look at his papers or prepare for the defence. Mr. Adams – Do you claim an adjournment? Mr. Walsh – Yes, until next court day, that I may consult with the law officers of the Crown. Mr. Fitzgerald – But the weed will be cut in the interim. Mr. Walsh – But the poor people must have fair play. Mr. Fitzgerald – I will give them no fair play when they have no title to it.

Mr. Walsh wished to have time to frame their defence, and he would undertake that the persons from that district would not cut the weed until this day week. His object was to get the advice of the law officers of the crown on the matter. Mr. Fitzgerald – Here is the opinion of the law officer of the crown (handing a paper). Mr. Walsh – But you should remember that the opinion of Mr. Green is at variance with Mr. Monaghan who gave an opinion on a case similar to this which Mr. Jagoe admitted was a failure. Mr. Nagle – Mr. O’Connell’s opinion is that the weed growing between high and low water mark is private property. Mr. Jagoe said that in cases of this description, where a patent was produced or a judgement against the parties, the Magistrates were bound to receive it. Mr. Scannell – And that is just what I am going to do. Mr. Scannell then produced a grant of Charles the 2nd to Garrett Fitzgerald of the lands of Corkbeg.

Mr. Nagle produced a conviction granted at the suit of Patrick Geary against James Corkeran for a trespass on that strand, for which he was fined 7s. 6d. Mr. Walsh contended that the patent did not grant the sea shore, but 600 acres profitable land. Mr. Adams did not see what land could be more profitable than the strand. Mr. Walsh objected to their reading the sea shore as profitable land, but land which is cultivated.

Mr. Fitzgerald – What do you say to the right of fishing? Mr. Walsh – That is an appurtenance to the land because it is on the sea. Mr. Nagle – There are 971 acres mentioned in another part of the patent.

Mr. Walsh said there were three kinds of land, terra firma, sea-shore and bottom; the subject can exercise a right over the sea shore between high and low water mark. Mr. Adams stated that Mr. Green’s opinion said that the shore was the property of the Crown between high and low water mark, but it was sometimes vested in the subject. Mr. Walsh agreed with him, but a grant had been produced in this case. If no grant had been produced they might assume that it was his property by exercising an ownership over it. That patent being produced, the Crown granted only 600 acres of profitable land by it. They were well aware that in old grants, the sea shore was not denominated profitable land, and the sea shore being land it could not be held as an appurtenance to land. Mr. Walsh then cited several cases from Barnwall and Creswell, Hall and Butler’s Reports, to prove that land could not be held as an appurtenance to land. He then contended that they could not assume, from his exercising acts of ownership, that the patent granted more than it was found to grant on its production. He submitted that as the sea shore was not granted by the patent, it raised the magistrates right of jurisdiction. Mr. Adams – You will not say that your client could go there against the prescriptive right in the Corkbeg family.

After some further arrangement, Mr. Walsh then contended that they should dismiss the case without entering into the claim of right at all. Were they to assume that those parties who cut the weed for thirty years would now ipso facto set up a fictitious supposition to having a right. He called on them to let the party try their civil right in another Court. Notwithstanding what has been said in the law books respecting their jurisdiction, they sat there like so many chief justices and tried the prescriptive right and a patent; and he called on them to adjudicate on the matter without legal assistance. It was better for them either to let the party try his civil right or else take informations and return them over to the Assistant Barrister’s Court.Mr. Adams suggested that the men should go and cut the weed tomorrow and let them be tried at the Sessions. Mr. Walsh was satisfied. Mr. Scannell – But no indictment could be framed unless there was a charge of violence.

Mr. Walsh was satisfied to allow information to be taken for using violence, and let the right be tried by the Assistant Barrister. The Court would not allow this and, Mr. Walsh said, he would now call on John Harty to give evidence. Mr. Scannell objected to his being examined as he was one of those summoned. The Court after a long argument would not permit the examination of the witness. The Chairman at length announced the decision of the Bench to be that they should be fined 10s. each or in case of non-payment to 1 month’s imprisonment in the House of Correction. Mr. Walsh requested them to impose a lighter fine. The Chairman declined doing so, as they would fine them much more heavily but for something that appeared on the trial.

Timothy Kiely, John Scannell, John Flynn Jun., John Enright, J. Flynn Sen., Thomas Barry and James Sliny, appeared on the summons of Richard Collins, to shew cause why they should not be convicted in a penalty of £5 under the malicious trespass act, for having cut a weed at Trabolgan on the 15th of April. Mr. Jagoe said that in this case he would proceed to prove his prescriptive right.

Michael Fitzgerald examined by Mr. Jagoe – Swore that he was at the strand of Trabolgan on the 15th of April and saw Enright pulling the weeds of the rock at half ebb tide; I desired him to go away but he desired me to mind my own business. Cross-examined by Mr. Walsh – He was standing on the dry rock pulling the weed and throwing it into the boat; John Scannell, Timothy Kiely and Thomas Barry were in the boat; when the tide would be out the place the boat was would be dry; I saw him push away the boat which was in, raised there by the water; he pushed her away with an oar; there were other boats there but they were further out to sea; Paddy Cashman and I went out to see if the strand under the rock would be dry at low water; he went off the rock almost immediately after being desired; would not swear that the weed he took was worth a halfpenny.

James Collins proved having seen Enright cutting the weed on the 15th of April, but did not think he cut 6d worth; he was cutting it on the strand about half way between high and low water mark.

Edward Sisk stated that he was never six months out of Trabolgan since he was born, and remembered Col. Roche setting the strand to Ahern in 1777, and no person ever attempted to trespass on it; it was held since by several persons and then the Ahern’s got it again; since 1837, when it was given up by Russell it was set in lots. To Mr. Walsh – Does not know on what part of the strand those men were cutting the weed.

The case for the prosecution having closed, Mr. Walsh considered that the evidence was clear that what the defendant cut was above low water mark, and he had no case on which he could raise an objection as to Mr. Roche’s right to the strand. However there was no evidence as to the value of the weed cut. The Chairman said that he conjectured that it was worth 2d. Mr. Walsh contended that in a criminal case they could not convict on a conjecture. Mr. Scannell believed the witness swore it was worth 2d at least.

Mr. Roche confessed he was anxious to convict Enright because he was one of a body he convicted before, and let off on a promise of not coming again. He was ready to let off the others on the conviction of one, as they were instigated to do the act in consequence of the feeling being abroad that it was not firm property. If they would plead guilty, he would let them off on a nominal penalty, as he had proved his property, and was not anxious to punish them.    Mr. Scannell wished to have them plead guilty and not be called in for judgement unless they trespassed again. Mr. Walsh would have no objection to that course, if Mr. Roche’s own eyes were on them, and could decide whether they were above or below low water mark. He would consent to Mr. Roche’s proposition to have them fined a penny each on a promise they would not go there again. Mr. Roche – That is what I have done.

The Court then fined the parties one penny each, and then being informed that six of those who were fined 10s. each had declined paying the penalty, warrants were made out, and they were transmitted to the County gaol to be imprisoned for one month.

Fr Philip O’Bryen 1861 – 1913

Philip O’Bryen is one of Ernest O’Bryen‘s older brothers. To be precise, he is four years older.

Philip, Celia, and Alfred OBryen
Philip, Celia, and Alfred OBryen

He was born 25th Jun 1861 in South Kensington, and died 7th Nov 1913. He is the third son of John Roche O’Bryen and Celia Grehan, one of their six children. He is a half brother of Mgr Henry O’Bryen, and Corinne and Basil O’Bryen by his father’s marriage to Eliza Henderson.

His obituary from the Tablet gives some clues.

The Tablet 15th November 1913

THE REV. PHILIP AUGUSTUS O’BRYEN.

We regret to record the death of the Rev. Philip Augustus O’Bryen, rector of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Princes Park, Liverpool which occurred on Friday afternoon, November 7, with startling suddenness. His morning had been spent in active work in the parish. After saying an early Mass at 6.45, he heard confessions and took Holy Communion to eight sick people. Between breakfast and noon he visited the sick in the Consumption Hospital, and returned home about midday. Feeling unwell and in considerable pain, he took to his bed. A little before three he was visited by one of his curates; at three he was found dead, having succumbed to heart failure, arising from rheumatism, to which he had, been subject since an attack of rheumatic fever in his student days at Ushaw.

Father O’Bryen, who was a cousin of Archbishop Bagshawe, was born in Westminster in 1861. He received his early education under the Christian Brothers, at Clapham, and went in 1872 to Ushaw, where he remained eighteen years, four of which were occupied in teaching. He was a B.A. of London University. Ordained at the English Martyrs’, Preston, in 1889, by Bishop O’Reilly, he was immediately appointed Professor of Mathematics and Science at St. Edward’s College, Liverpool, where he remained until his appointment as assistant priest at the important mission of the Sacred Heart, Liverpool, in 1895. Towards the end of the following year he was placed over the Mission of St. Joseph, Skerton, near Lancaster. On his arrival he found only a school chapel, but through the generosity of the late Miss Margaret Coulston he was able to build the present magnificent church and presbytery. In 1902 he succeeded the Rev. Father Pyke, now of the English Martyrs’, Preston, at Mount Carmel, Liverpool, and applied the funds raised by his predecessor in connection with the silver jubilee of the mission to erect a roodscreen and effect other improvements. His first important work in his new sphere was the division of his parish, and he superintended the building of St. Malachy’s Church, the foundation stone of which was laid some ten years ago by Cardinal Logue.

Requiem Masses for the soul of the deceased priest were said in several Liverpool churches. On Sunday evening the remains were taken to the church, where a crowded congregation had assembled. A solemn dirge was recited on Monday evening. The funeral took place on Tuesday, when a High Mass of Requiem was sung at the Church of Our Lady of Mount Carmel by the Archbishop of Liverpool, the deacon being Father Newton (Eccles), and the subdeacon Father J. Fitzgerald. Dean Goethals and Father J. Broadhead (vice-president of Ushaw) were deacons at the throne, and Father H. Blanchard was master of ceremonies. The music of the Mass was sung by the clergy diocesan choir, under the direction of Father A. Walmsley (Great Crosby.) The relatives present were Mr. and Mrs. Alfred O’Bryen, Mr. R. O’Bryen and Mr. B. Smith. The clergy present included Canons Kennedy and Hennelly (Birkenhead), Prior Burge, 0.S.B., Dom Wilson, 0.S.B., and Dean O’Donoghue (Wigan). The sermon was preached by the Rev. Father J. Hughes, who spoke highly of the character and work of the deceased.

The remains were taken to London, and the interment took place at Fulham Catholic Cemetery on Wednesday.—R.I.P.

 

The Purssells 1861 -1871

The decade between 1861 and 1871 seems to be a pivotal one for the family. There is a definite sense of some succeeding, whilst others do nothing like as well; and by the start of the 1870’s there appears to be almost a gulf between the two remaining branches of the family.

Mile End Road, E.1

Joe has already emigrated to Australia, and has married again, in 1860; though it is not clear whether his first wife is still alive in London. By 1860, he had gone bankrupt twice. He was first bankrupted in 1839, when his address was given as 33 Crown Row, Mile End Road, London, and had a brief spell in a debtor’s prison; he would have been 24.

He went bankrupt again in 1850, where he was described as a butcher & cowman, at 3 Wellington Street Bethnal Green. On the second occasion, William Purssell, his younger brother, appears to have stepped in and acts as his assignee – i.e, the person appointed to sort out his financial affairs.

Royal Exchange, Cornhill and Threadneedle St

John Roger has also gone bankrupt, probably in 1854. His slightly hubristic attempt to rival the established Purssell business in Cornhill, with his own business in Ludgate Hill, and Regent Street doesn’t seem to have worked, and by 1861, he is using the premises at 162 Regent Street as a photographer’s studio. Having said that, he is still describing himself as a confectioner in the census that year.  He emigrates to Australia sometime in the 1860’s, but returns by the end of the century. His wife Eliza calls herself a widow, in the 1871 census, when she was living at 19 Lincoln Street, Mile End with their five youngest children. She describes herself as a house-owner, so obviously had some money. At least four of their seven children seem to have emigrated to Australia as well. Crucially, JR’s youngest, and only, daughter remained in London; and it’s with her, and her family, that he lives with on his return. So at least one of the children knew their father was still alive.

By 1861, things have progressed on the business front as well.  James Purssell and his family moved to New York in 1857; he had originally been in partnership with William, dissolving the partnership in 1854, and then laterly in partnership with Alfred until 1857, with the move to New York, as shown from the notice in The London Gazette.

NOTICE is hereby given, that the Partnership hereto-fore subsisting between us the undersigned, James Purssell and Alfred Purssell, as Biscuit Bakers and Confectioners,under the style or firm of James and Alfred Purssell, in Cornhill and Finch-lane, in the city of London, is this day dissolved by mutual consent.—Dated this 14th day of October, 1857.

So by 1861, Alfred was in sole control of the Purssell business in London. He is thirty years old, the father of a two year-old daughter, and a widower.

Alfred married Laura Rose Coles in the spring of 1857 at St George the Martyr, in Southwark. He was twenty six, and she was two years younger. Laura Rose was born in Blackheath on 19th March 1833. By the time they were married, Queen Victoria had been on the throne almost twenty years, but even so they were born during the reign of William IV.

Laura Rose and Alfred’s marriage was short-lived, she died on 22nd February 1860, aged just twenty seven, at 8, Highbury Crescent West in Islington, about half a mile away from the site of the old Highbury stadium. Rather touchingly, Alfred and Laura Mary were living in “Laura House” in Blackheath in the mid-1860’s.

Anyway, back to who is where in 1861.

Brighton Pavilion

Alfred, his daughter Laura Mary, and his eldest sister Charlotte, are all staying with William and Eliza Purssell at 18 James Place, Brighton.

William Purssell describes himself as a retired confectioner, aged forty four; and may well have retired as early as 1854 when he dissolved the partnership he had with James. Fifty year old Charlotte describes herself as a fund-holder, implying she, too, has retired, and Alfred describes himself as an employer of fifty heads. That is a 25% increase in staff numbers over the last ten years, so business is expanding.  

Also staying the night of the census, are three servants, a cook, housemaid, and a nurse; and twenty-eight year old William Jones, a manufacturer of artificial flowers from Plymouth, where he is employing fifteen people.

Regent Street, London, 1860
Regent Street, London, c.1860

Back in London at 10 Union Place, Newington, in Lambeth, John Roger is still calling himself a confectioner, dabbling in photography, and according to photolondon.org placing advertisements in The Times in March, and May that year for the photography business in Regents Street.

He is a thirty-six year old father of four sons, and the household also has two young female house servants. There is no trace of his nine year old son Edward, nor seven year old Albert after the 1861 census, though the younger two, Francis, and Charles are living with their mother ten years later, along with Arthur,Augustus, and Eliza.

Illawarra c.1885
Illawarra c.1885

All of Eliza’s traceable sons appear to have gone to Australia. Francis emigrated on the Illawarra, arriving in New South Wales on the 6th Aug 1883.

Charles George seems to have emigrated some time after 1881, and died in Australia. Arthur, also, appears to have emigrated; and Augustus appears to have emigrated, married, and died in Australia as well.

Virgo Fidelis convent norwood
Virgo Fidelis Convent, Norwood

By 1871,  Alfred has re-married, and had more children. Mother St George is in the convent in Norwood. Charlotte Purssell Jnr has died in London in 1869.  James is in New York. William is dead.  John Roger Purssell is presumed to be in Australia.

229 Mile End Road 1910
229 Mile End Road c.1910

And finally, their mother Charlotte Purcell is living in Mile End, at 350 Mile End Road, aged eighty-one, with Mary Isaacs, a sixteen year old servant girl; and her daughter-in-law, Eliza (William’s widow) is living at 2 Satin Road, Lambeth, also with a servant. In her case, nineteen year old Louisa Cox, from Banbury, in Oxfordshire.

The Fabulous Kitty Pope-Hennessey

Kitty Pope Hennessy

This is the start of the story of Kitty Pope-Hennessy. There’s way too much to put into one post, so this is the start of a series. It is tangential to the main families, but gives an interesting twist to the circles they move in, and also how inter-related they were.

Rostellan_Castle
Rostellan Castle

 

Kitty Pope-Hennessy married Edward Thackwell early in 1894 at Rostellan Castle in Cork. She was a forty-four year old widow, and he was twenty six. He was a year older than her eldest son who died young, and three, and seven, years older than his step-sons.

Kitty and Edward had almost certainly met at the wedding of his sister Catherine at Aghada Hall in 1891. She became a widow that year when John Pope-Hennessey died in October 1891. Lady Pope Hennessy’s wedding present to the bride was an Astrakhan wrap.

Edward was the only son of a second son, William de Wilton Roche Thackwell (1834–1910), who served in the Crimean War and in Egypt in 1882. All three of his uncles also served in the army, as did most of his cousins, but he certainly doesn’t join the army, and doesn’t appear to have worked much at all..

To paraphrase Mrs Merton ” So Edward, what attracted you to the wealthy neighbour with the castle?”

Edward’s grandfather had bought Agahada House in 1853, though by the time of the wedding, it had almost certainly been inherited by his uncle Joseph Edward Lucas Thackwell, and then passed on to Edward, and Katherine’s younger first cousin, Walter Joseph, (b. 1876).

The sale of the house was the end of John Roche‘s dream of creating a Roche dynasty, based on the male (Roche) sons of either of his nephews. The only male heirs John Roche had left after the death of James Joseph Roche in 1847 were John Roche O’Bryen, and his brothers.  Lieut.-Gen. Sir Joseph Thackwell, who bought the estate, was a veteran of  the Peninsular War, and Waterloo, as well as the First Anglo-Afghan War, and the First Anglo-Sikh War. Maria, his wife, was from the branch of the Roche family that owned Trabolgan House, which makes her a first cousin five times removed of Diana, Princess of Wales.

John_Pope_Hennessy
Sir John Pope Hennessy

Kitty’s husband, Sir John Pope-Hennessy had bought Rostellan Castle on his retirement from the Colonial Service.  It had been in the hands of the O’Brien/O’Bryens since 1645 until the death of the 3rd, and last, Marquess of Thomond in 1855, when it was bought by Dr T. A. Wise, followed by Sir John. The house was demolished in 1944. There is a description of the house by Samuel Lewis in 1837.

“Rostellan Castle, the seat of the Marquess of Thomond, is an elegant mansion on the margin of the harbour, over which it commands extensive and pleasing views, and in a highly cultivated and extensive demesne, comprehending one – third of the parish, and richly embellished with woods and plantations. The grounds are arranged with great taste, and for nearly two miles skirted by the waters of Rostellan bay, and diversified with the rural and picturesque houses of the farming steward, gardeners, and others connected with the management of the farm. The gardens are extensive and tastefully arranged; the flower gardens contain a fine selection of the choicest plants and flowers.“(A Topographical Dictionary of Ireland, 1837)

All three of the houses are within a five mile radius of each other on the south eastern edge of Cork harbour, though none have survived to the present day.  There are no clear apparent links between our O’Bryens and Roches to either of the Rostellan or Trabolgan families, apart from shared surnames, and any speculation is for another time.

 

Hanky Panky in Islington

This is about two of Emily Foreman’s uncles.

In Islington at 5 Hollingsworth St, North, in 1881, there is a very strange set-up. The house was shared between three households; there was Richard and Mary Parker, and their six sons, three teenage, three younger, the youngest being four.  It was also shared with the Sable family with two sons, and two daughters. The census return for the third household in the building is as follows.

  • George Foreman 61  head,   wheelwright,   wilts, warminster 
  • Carrie Foreman 45    wife                                surrey,lambeth
  • Albert Foreman 41    son      wheelwright,   somerset,bristol

There is a lot in this that is very curious.  The ages in this don’t appear to match up for it to be George Senior who should be 79, and was born in 1802 in Warminster and died in about 1870, and if it is George Junior he would be about 55, and not 61 years old. However they are right for Albert, and the professions, and places of birth are right.

But what is a lot stranger is the descriptions of  “Head, Wife, and Son”. George Junior was born in 1826 in Warminster, like his father who was 24  when Geo Jnr was born. Al was born fourteen years later in 1840, in Bristol. In all the other census returns, Albert is referred to as George Senior’s son,and given his position amongst the family, it seems incredibly unlikely he isn’t. As we can see from the dates of birth below, George Senior, and Eliza, have a child every couple of years or so, or even closer, for almost twenty years.

  • George Foreman Jnr. b. 1827
  • Walter Foreman b.1829
  • Seleana Foreman b. 1833
  • John Laverton Foreman b.1834
  • Richard Foreman b. 1835
  • Joseph Benjamin Foreman b. 1837
  • Albert Foreman b. 1840
  • Alfred E Foreman b.1844
  • Sophia A Foreman b. 1847

So, whilst it is technically possible that fourteen year old George becomes a father in Bristol in 1840, it does seem more than improbable. It seems even more improbable, to the point of absurdity, that he would end up with a son that he gets his parents to bring up as his younger brother.

So we’re faced with the next part of the puzzle, “Wife, and Son”. Why is Al listed as a son, rather than a brother? There is nothing odd in putting down brother in the box describing the relationship to the head of the household. In fact most obvious descriptions of the relationship are used at the time.  It could be an enumerator’s error, or it could be what they were told.

The following puzzle is Carrie Foreman; if she is George Junior’s wife, then she may be his second wife, and there is no trace of a marriage; or she is his only wife, and called herself Catherine initially, and over time changed to Carrie, and then Caroline.

George got married in the summer of 1864 to Catherine Fitzpatrick, somewhere in Westminster, when he was either 38 or 43, and she was ten years younger. They were living as husband and wife at 48 Borough Road, in Southwark in 1871; even then George is unclear about his age, and says he was five years older (50) than he actually was (45). Having said that, it may well answer the fact that he says he is also five years older than he actually was in 1881 as well. Catherine also gives her age as 40, rather than 35.

Catherine Fitzpatrick seems to have been born sometime between 1831 and 1835. Given the variety of ages that Catherine/Carrie/Caroline seems to gives in the census returns, they are probably the same person.

Caroline Foreman died in Lewisham on the 26th July 1905, and her age is recorded in the Parish register as 70. This would mean she was born in about 1835, which would mean her age in the 1881 census would be about right, and that it is the same woman. In 1891, she says she is 48, when she is in fact 55, and Albert also takes two years off his age, and says he is only 49. By 1901, Al is back to the correct age, but Carrie is still describing herself as three years younger. There’s nothing wrong with this Madonna has been doing it for years.

However this does all rather skirt around the head/husband – wife/sister-in-law- son/brother thing. By 1891, Al and Carrie are living as man and wife, and George has disappeared. Al and Carrie continue to call themselves husband and wife in the 1901 census, and presumably until his death in Poplar in 1902, and hers in Lewisham in 1905.

This raises the obvious question, when did Albert’s and Carrie’s relationship start? Al is probably four years younger than she is, and fourteen years younger than his eldest brother George.  Both men are working as wheelwrights, so it does make some sense that Al is sharing with his brother, and sister-in-law rather than with other members of the family. It also makes some sense for George having a younger man working alongside him, as it was tough physical work. Campbell’s The London Tradesman (1747) says the following

“The Wheelwright is employed in making wheels for all manner of Carriages; I mean the wooden work. This business requires more Labour than Ingenuity; a Boy of weakly Constitution can make no hand at this Trade. It is abundantly profitable to the Master and a Journeyman earns from 15 to 20s. per week. A Youth may be bound about Fifteen.

The Cart-Wheeler differs nothing from the Coach-Wheeler, but that he makes wheels for carts only and is not obliged to turn his work so neatly finished as the other.

A boy designed for this trade requires to be of strong robust Constitution and ought not to be bound till the age of 15 or 16, when his joints begin to knit and he has arrived at a moderate degree of strength. A Journeyman earns from 12 to 15s. a week.”

We don’t know from the 1881 census how many rooms there were in Hollingsworth Street, but it is unlikely they were living in more than a couple. In 1891, Al and Carrie were living in two room, in Bow, and ten years later they were in one room in Parnell Road. So I think we can safely assume they were living in very close proximity in Hollingsworth Street, if not actually on top of each other.

In his Life and Labour of the People in London Charles Booth mapped out poverty levels in London from 1886, and literally walked the streets to record it. Booth categorized each street as a different colour, and category from A. to H. ranging from occasional workers/semi-criminal to upper middle class/wealthy.  He describes Hollingsworth Street as a mixture of Light Blue, and Purple, or C,D.

Light Blue: Poor. 18s. to 21s. a week for a moderate family”

“Purple: Mixed. Some comfortable, others poor”

“C. Intermittent earning. 18s to 21s per week for a moderate family. The victims of competition and on them falls with particular severity the weight of recurrent depressions of trade. Labourers, poorer artisans and street sellers. This irregularity of employment may show itself in the week or in the year: stevedores and waterside porters may secure only one of two days’ work in a week, whereas labourers in the building trades may get only eight or nine months in a year.”

“D. Small regular earnings. poor, regular earnings. Factory, dock, and warehouse labourers, carmen, messengers and porters. Of the whole section none can be said to rise above poverty, nor are many to be classed as very poor. As a general rule they have a hard struggle to make ends meet, but they are, as a body, decent steady men, paying their way and bringing up their children respectably.”

Let’s assume that the Foreman household is at the upper end of the scale and are “decent steady men, paying their way” . It is still fascinating to speculate as to when Al and Carrie’s relationship started, and why they never bothered to get married. 

By 1891, they were living in two rooms at 12 Libra Road, Bow. Another shared house, with three families living there. The Barlass family live in four rooms. William Barlass is a fourty year old carpenter from Manchester, Annie Barlass was from Bristol, and the family seems to have started married life in Bristol with the three eldest children born there, before moving to London.They had five sons, and three daughters

Also there, in one room, are Mary Ragan, and her 15 year old nephew George Rolph, both born in the East End, in Hackney and Barking respectively. She’s a tailor, and dressmaker, and George is working as a messenger boy in the Port of London

By 1901, they are living in one room at 70 Parnell Road Bow, in another shared house with Ambrose Moyonowicz, his wife Mary, and their seven daughters, and one son. Ambrose is a woodworker. The Moyonowiczes are living in four rooms between them. Rather bizarrely, for someone with an eastern European surname like Moyonowicz, Ambrose says he was born in Swindon. Also in the house are 24 year old Thomas Marchant, his wife Maud, and their 6 month old baby, also called Maud. Tom is a line worker, and they are also in one room

Al dies two years later in Poplar aged 63, followed by Carrie two years after him at the age of 70.

Emily Foreman’s Uncles and Aunts

Emily Foreman is John Gray’s second wife, and John Laverton Foreman’s daughter

Wheelwright's workshop
Wheelwright’s workshop

Emily’s grandfather George Foreman Snr was born in 1802 in Warminster and died in about 1870. He was a wheelwright, so a skilled working man. Eliza Laverton was born two years later in 1804 in Shepton Mallet in Somerset, and they married in 1825. Eliza died in London in the autumn of 1860. They are my great great great grandparents. George and Eliza had nine children.

  • George Foreman Jnr. b. 1827
  • Walter Foreman b.1829
  • Seleana Foreman b. 1833
  • John Laverton Foreman b.1834
  • Richard Foreman b. 1835
  • Joseph Benjamin Foreman (Josh) b. 1837
  • Albert Foreman b. 1840
  • Alfred E Foreman b.1844
  • Sophia A Foreman b. 1847

The family were in Nelson Place Bristol by 1841, moved to Barnet by 1851, and then to Bermondsey by 1861. The majority of the boys are all wheelwrights at various times, in Albert’s case having been a gunner in the Royal Artillery.

By 1851 the family had moved to Nursery Row, Mimms Side, Barnet in Hertfordshire.  Where George Foreman Snr was working as a wheelwright, and George Jnr, then aged 24, as a coach wheelwright. 18 year old John was a labourer,  and Josh (Joseph) Foreman was a14 year old errand boy. Albert, Alfred, and Sophia were all at school.  There is no trace of Seleana, Richard, or Walter, though Walter re-surfaces again in 1871.

Royal Artillery Barracks,Woolwich 1900
Royal Artillery Barracks,Woolwich 1900

By 1861, they are all starting to move properly into adult life. Eliza  has  died in the autumn of 1860.  The Georges Senior and Junior  are living in Southwark with Alfred and Sophia. 22 year old Albert has joined the army, and is in Woolwich Barracks.

JLF is 27 years old, married with a child, Emily, and living at 17 White Place, Bermondsey with Catherine’s widowed 71 year old mother (GGG Granny). John has obviously learned a trade by then because he describes himself as a boilermaker working in Hammersmith. In 1851, he was listed as an 18 year old labourer, and the Georges Senior and Junior, are working as a wheelwright, and a blacksmith respectively. Alfred is a “moulder”, and 14 year old Sophia is working in the silk trade.

There doesn’t appear to be any trace of Walter, Richard, or Selena.

By 1871, JLF is still living in Bermondsey, but at 27 Mint Street, with 12 year old Emily, and her 9 year old brother George Laverton Foreman. Ellen Montgomery, Catherine’s mother is still living with them having reached 81. Ellen’s place of birth is still listed as Liverpool, but Catherine’s place of birth has changed from Liverpool in the 1861 census, to Dublin in 1871.

Alfred has joined the Navy, and is serving on HMS Barrosa, which is at the Singapore Straits Settlement on the night of the census. He is 27 that year, and John Laverton Foreman is ten years older.

However Walter has reappeared living in Spital Road, New Windsor in Berkshire. He is now 42 years old, married and describes himself as a coach maker master employing 2 men. His wife Mary is a year older than him.

Sophia has moved out and is lodging with a policeman, and his family. She is 24, and working as a machinist, and living at 38 Frances St, a couple of streets north of Waterloo station.

There is no trace of the Georges Senior and Junior, Joseph, Richard, Serena, or Albert.

The Turks Head, 711 Old Kent Road c.1880

1881 is when it all appears to get interesting. John is still living in Southwark, but now at 12 Darwin Street. He is a 48 year old widower living with his son George who is 19 and describes himself as a teacher (Unemployed) (Schoolmaster), and 22 year old Emily, who marries John Gray two years later on October 21st 1883 at St Philip’s Church Camberwell,when he is 63 and she is 25, and are both shown living at 746 Old Kent Road.

Meanwhile over in Islington at 5 Hollingworth St North, in 1881, there is a very strange household.  No 5. was shared  with Richard and Mary Parker, and their six sons, three teenage, three younger, the youngest being four.  It was also shared with the Sable family with two sons, and two daughters. The census return for the third household in the building is as follows

  • George Foreman 61  head,   wheelwright,   wilts, warminster 
  • Carrie Foreman 45    wife                                surrey,lambeth
  • Albert Foreman 41    son      wheelwright,   somerset,bristol

The ages in this don’t appear to match up for it to be George Senior who should be 79, and if it is George junior he would be about 54. However they are right for Albert, and the professions, and places of birth are right. I’ll come back to the curious household later. or see this post.

However by now, Walter is still in Spital Road in Windsor. This time in Grove Cottage, which may,or may not have been the same address as 1871. This time he lists himself as a wheelwright employing two boys, rather than a coach-maker as previously. Richard Foreman has resurfaced as well, this time at 25 Brownlow Rd, Shoreditch, where he and his wife Elizabeth are sharing their house with a twenty four year old lodger.

Saint George Church, Hanover Square

Back in London, Alfred has come out of the Navy, and is living  at 10 Short St, New Cut, Waterloo with his wife and two year old daughter. They are about two miles away from John, and about three from George and Albert. Thirty seven year old Alf is working as a provisions porter.  He married Emma Spittle four years previously, in the summer of 1877 at St George’s, Hanover Square.  Emma is a south London girl, born in Lambeth.  Her father, David Spittle is an engine fitter in Lambeth, and Sophia Foreman, Alf’s sister married her brother David Spittle Jnr on 4th June 1876  at St Clement, Barnsbury, Islington. He is 41, and she is 29, and an engine fitter like his father.

JLF , remarries in 1883, the same year his daughter Emily marries John Gray. JLF marries on the 11th  January, as a 47 year old widower to Eliza Sparrow, 39 at St Mary Magdalene, Southwark. Her parents are witnesses. his father’s profession is a wheelwright, and her father Elijah Sparrow is a gardener.  Both are living at 12 Darwin Street, which just off the Old Kent Road.

bisnc_postcardAlf, Emma, and Eleanor emigrate the same year, leaving London on 5th November 1883, and arrive at Cleveland Bay, Queensland, 16 miles south east of Brisbane, on New Year’s Day 1884.  They traveled via Suez, and Batavia, now Jakarta, in Indonesia,  and finally Brisbane, on the Goalpara, a 285ft long steam ship, with one funnel, and two masts (rigged for sail). It was brand new, having been built in Glasgow for British India Steam Navigation’s Queensland Royal Mail Service the same year. It was the only voyage the ship made on the route, transferring the following year to the Mail Service between India and Singapore.

Finally to close this chapter, John Laverton Foreman dies in the autumn of 1885 aged 52, somewhere in Camberwell. That same year George, John and Emily Gray’s eldest son is born, also in Camberwell, followed by Jesse two years later, Auntie Kitty born a year after him in 1888, and Walter, in 1890.

Would the real Lady RP please stand up?

Viewer feedback is the posts have been flagging. So a new one

 

Help are these all the same woman?

The first one is definately Lady Roper Parkington, the second is at the OB wedding in 1924,  and the third is from the Mayor’s garden party in 1914. Both of them are behind the Cardinal in the photo (also on the home page)

Lady JRP Large 1Lady RP?Garden party

Standish Barry of Leamlara

I’m not quite sure why this page is so popular, but it’s getting the most views this year.

Originally, it was simply included because  Henry Standish Barry was a guest at Frank Purssell’s wedding. This could be something as simple as they went to school together, or could be a family thing. Or it could be a bigger Catholic/Cork merchant  thing. So I’ll do some work. It turns out to be almost certainly a school thing. Henry and Frank were at Downside together.

If there are directions people want me to head, post a comment or use the (private) contact form. W. 

leamlara-house-carrigtohill
Leamlara House

This branch of the great Barry family had been in possession of the Leamlara property since the Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland in the reign of Henry II, when they accompanied Strongbow. The estates were confirmed to John Barry in 1636 by Charles I and again by Charles II to John’s son Garrett.

The latter’s son, David, married a daughter of Standish O’Grady, whose great-great-grandson was Garrett Standish Barry. Garrett Standish Barry was educated at Trinity College Dublin and was called to the Bar in 1811. Elected to the House of Commons for county Cork in 1832, Garrett was the first Catholic Member of Parliament elected after the Emancipation Act of 1829. He continued as M.P. until 1841. He was made High Sheriff of county Cork in 1830 and was also Justice of the Peace and Deputy Lieutenant for the county.

During his term as an M.P. Daniel O’Connell stayed a few times at Leamlara House. In 1841, Garrett Standish Barry offered to resign his seat in Cork in favour of Daniel O’Connell, if the latter had failed to be elected in Dublin, and he duly did so. O’Connell was the M.P. for Cork County from 1841 until his death in 1847.  He died in 1864, without issue and was succeeded in the estate by his younger brother, Henry Standish, whose son and heir, Charles Standish, married in 1869 the Hon. Margaret Mary, daughter of Lieut-Colonel the Hon. Arthur Francis Southwell, and sister of the 4th Viscount Southwell, K.P.

henry-standish-barryCharles’s only son, Henry Joseph Arthur Robert Bruno Standish Barry, was born in 1873 and was the 24th and last Standish Barry to live at Leamlara. He was educated at Downside, Bath. Henry was Justice for the Peace in Cork County and married Eleanor Lilian Helene, daughter of Major-General C.B. Lucie Smith, Madras Civil Service. Henry had two daughters and one son, Charles Henry Joseph Garrett Standish was born in 1900.

 

 

 

Nell St. John MontagueMrs. Henry Standish Barry was a well known fortune teller in London under the name of Nell St. Montague and is said to have foretold the sinking of the Lusitania. She was killed in a road accident during the blitz in the Second World War. Henry’s son Charles died at the age of 18, so Henry was succeeded on his death in 1945 by his daughters who later sold the estate to the Irish Land Commission.