Once again thanks for the further info.
One the diocesan question, I don't actually know, but if you simply google the Dioces of EMly yuo wil probably get som link to a sitethat might provide a map ro other info. Take the RC and CoI diocese may be slightly different.
I'm a bit unclear as to how you are confidently saying that persons were married in Coi chruches, is. it the source of the marriage info that specifically informs that it is CoI. Though to be fair, many RC records may no longer exist or have not be digitised/digitally published.
As a further thought info might be found in Methodist Church records. I don't know to what degree a clear delineation would have been made across a family on preference to attend one or the other and marriage might change allegance!
Now to put my skeptics hat on again.....Looking at your earlier posting, You mention Elizabeth born @1805 marrying in 1820. That seems a bit young, but your latest post suggest birth arround 1802 which is "less alarming". Other young marriage cases appear with her daughter Mary who was born @1825 and married in 1840. And daughter Jane Spain (your ancestor) born@1828 and married 1844!
I had a brief look at the "freely available" census infor for the 1871 period in the UK and also see no sign of Andrew, but I was not seeing all electoral areas. By the way where abouts were the McClearys located arround that time?
Now to the material sources you quote. Do these exist in the form of "paper letters" or merely word of mouth. If hand written papers, perhaps you could scan or photograph them and upload them to this site (attach to a posting). The problem with word of mouth is that Chinese Whisper effects can mess the info up unless somebody writes it down relatively quickly/soon in the process.
I had probably seen references to the Jane Coe death informed of my H Hinchy - but had little to connect with my research.
I did most of my research 8-10 years ago when access to the various LDS IGI / familysearch records was more open and less tracked. In recent years you have to have a log on account in order to use the resource. I can go to a local library which maintains subscriptions to one or too genealogical resources and thus allow direct access to the resource without the library user having to use their own login account. I tend not to keep too high a profile in the online worlld. When I get to the library I will review the material further and see how I can place things together according to what you suggest. But the more pointers you can give me to the early 1800s and any links (deaths/marriages) to matters in late 1800s the better. records in Ireland make dramatic improvements in the period after 1870 and on up to 1940 by which time the info is quite good.
as regards Lucy and Mary marriages. I had come across Mary / Cranwell in my earlier trawls, but had not pursued as it is so hard to make a clear connection. And I do accept that there may be other children between 1784 and 1802/1806 timeframes.
As regards how I fit in, as mentioned , of the 3 guys, William, Matthew and Maurice on the headstones, only Williiam had any children as best I can make out. Now that William had a number of children, among which William, Matthew and Maurice are the 3 lines from this "william junior" which currently have many living descendants. Andrew has few living descendants. And an Elizabeth (Lizzie) has no remaining descendants to my knowledge. In good form the "Williiam 3" obliged with a number of children, among them another William! with other male children having Maurice and Matthew as second names. It is from that line that I am derived! The Maurice line has the greater propensity to be "HENCHY". The Matthew line has a Matthew and a William. Other names get mixed in, influenced by the respective spouses no doubt. I have been in touch with persons from both the Matthew and Maurice lines. One person from the Maurice line has done a DNA text with My Heritage. So if somebody from your Spain grouping has also done DNA with my heritage , there might be some trigger of a connect noted. but back many generations this will be rather weak and perhaps unreliable. DNA is fine for IDing a parent from a more distant relative, but fails when many generations depth is needed before the direct connection.
There are other Henchy's floating in Ireland in the 1900s which I cannot connect to Hinchy line I have studied. However as it happens on one of my other "family tree lines" one of those Henchy's married in! Further- on another line, a relative has a friend whose brother married a Hinchy from the "Matthew" line. So various genealogical or simply life connections may wrap around.
Once again, if you have a scan or other "paper" form of the info you have quoted, that would be interesting. You mention that Andrew Henchy was residing with MCCleary in the UK, does that info exist as a letter with an address? IE do you know where in the UK they were. Have you checked that family out in the UK census?
Also check out recently openned digital access www.virtualtreasury.ie which may also have info from records thought previously destroyed in 1922. Some info has been digitised of the conserved damaged (burnt) records and other info sources from other countries.
rhinchy