Would you be able to help?

Dear Edward:

Many thanks for your post to the message board. I am forwarding this to one of our volunteers who will be able to assist you.  You should receive a reply from her in the next week or so.

All the best,

 

Jane

Thank you Jane that's kind of you.

Ed

Thanks Maresa, really kind of you to look into that and I appreciate very much. You're kind for looking into that.

This is where I've got to with my research:

I did see that birth registration previously and I concluded it probably wouldn't be my Bridget. There are a reasons for and against this being my Bridget.

For:

There is name match with father per marriage certificate - Daniel.

The area of Pennywell was also home to the McAllisters on the census returns of 1901/1911 - who were the informal adoptive family

The birth year of 1868 is biologically credible.

Against:

She put her age as 19 on her marriage in 1899. If she was 31 (i.e. born 1868) it seems a stretch, even if needing to appear younger than spouse (23)

The could-be father, Daniel Brennan, of the Pennywell area is listed as 'Last Maker' on the 1868 birth and then later, when he dies in 1880, as 'Carpenter' - whereas again on her 1899 marriage registration she cites him as 'Publican' - and not 'deceased' either.

On a census return Bridget is recorded as place birth being 'Co Limerick' rather than 'Limerick' like the rest of the family. And that chimes with:

Information from a 1929 ship's manifest where she puts "Annasty" as her place of birth and "Limerick" for her son. Not that Annasty seems to exist, but Annacotty does and I wondered whether it had been transcribed incorrectly or suchlike.

The adoptive family, McAllisters, married in 1883 and were living in Annacotty at the time as per their registration. That puts them near The Black Swan where I think a certain Daniel Brennan was publican. This man married in 1887 and was 39 by that time and noted as bachelor. That could make him a credible candidate for father of Bridget, biologically and possibly socially if the new wife wanted the child out of the way. 

Lastly, Bridget's youngest child was born in November 1916 which would make her 48 at the time of she'd been born in 1868. Credible, but her being 36 seems more credible. 

-----

So I'm still treading water on this one unfortunately, it's a family mystery still.

 

 

 

Thanks Maresa, you're a star for helping me there. I did trawl 1879 and found a few fatherless Bridgets in Limerick workhouse, but then what can I do with it? Who knows! I think DNA would be a good idea... I've not done that yet. Take care and thanks again ... really lovely to know there's folks like yourself giving their time to help. Cheers 

Ed 
 

 

 

Hi Jennifer, thank you so much for your reply too. I did look at several sections of the report although not the report in its entirety. I've not got much further with Bridget so far but you never know... I did get my dna tested which has led to a couple of lovely discoveries so far, with connections to the Wallaces in Limerick. Countless other dna matches but it's difficult to work out who they might be! Again, thank you for your reply. 
take care
Ed