Not done with the Rickerts yet!

This is the 1920 Census of what I believe to be Loretta and Joseph Rickert's family. Why aren't I sure? Because of this oh-so-confusing Anna Rickert. Joseph had a sister named Anna Rickert, but she wasn't his wife, of course. This Anna L. Rickert is listed as his wife, and her age, 31, means she should have been born around 1889, which is pretty close to how old Loretta Rickert should have been. (I think she was born in 1888.) Joseph's sister was Anna M. Rickert, and she was his older sister, and should be closer to 40 than to 30. Now, Loretta Madigan Rickert is usually listed as Loretta A. Madigan and/or Rickert, while this Anna Rickert is listed as Anna L. Rickert. Could a Loretta Anna or an Anna Loretta have gone by Anna sometimes and Loretta other times? Maybe she's listed as Anna here because Joseph called her Anna, after her middle name.

After all, everyone knows that Almanzo Wilder called Laura "Beth" from her middle name, Elizabeth.

The thing is, I just don't know. Was Joseph living with his sister instead of his wife, and the lady of the household was accidentally listed as being his wife? Or did he call his wife Anna?

Anyway, the Rickert family, whoever they consisted of (gosh that's bad grammar), lived at 81 Union Street. Joseph is 38, and was born in NJ, with two parents both born in Pennsylvania. He's a salesman though I can't tell in what industry. He was a WWI veteran. Anna/Loretta is 31 and was born in NY. Her father was from Ireland and her mother from New York. (That sure sounds like Loretta's family, and not anything like what Anna M. Rickert the sister's family would have looked like.) Their son Joseph is 2 years and 11 months old, and Eugene is 2 months old. That means Joseph was born around the beginning of 1928 and Eugene was born in the vicinity of November of 1919. Both were born in New York, and, predictably, both of their mothers were born in NY and their fathers in New Jersey. Joseph is listed as being able to speak English, while Eugene is not.

If you skip down a few lines, you see another Rickert family listed at 81 Union Street. This is Joseph's brother August A., his wife Olga, and their two sons August Jr. and Thomas. August and Olga are 33 and should have been born around 1887. August Jr. is 7, born around 1913, and Thomas is 4 years and months old, born around 1915. Olga and August were both born in NY, which would seem to mean that the Rickert family moved from New Jersey to New York sometime between when Joseph was born and when August was born. August's parents, in keeping with Joseph's parents, were born in Pennsylvania, and Olga's parents were German-born. August is a salesman, and it looks like he sells newspapers. He, too, is a World War I veteran.

Mary Ann Madigan Mulcahy Death Notice, 1927

From the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, via Fulton History:

MULCAHY—On Monday, April 11,
1927, MARY (nee Madigan), beloved
wife of the late Michael Mulcahy
and mother of Mrs. Hugh Hennessey,
James, Matthew, Joseph, Michael,
John, Gerard, Vincent and May Mulcahy.
Funeral Thursday, 2 p.m., from
her residence. 85 Luquer st. Interment
Holy Cross Cemetery. A solemn
mass of requiem will be celebrated
Monday. April 15, at 9 a.m.,
in St. Mary Star of the Sea Church,
for the repose of her soul.

Wedding Picture!

I'd had a bad copy of this for years, but Betty and John just sent me a much nicer image, with much more complete identification of the subjects. It was taken at the wedding dinner of Gerard Mulcahy and Ann Danaher, June 13, 1937, at the Hotel St. George (which is the same place that Nan and Pop would later have their wedding reception, in the 1950s. Interestingly, the photography studio is also the same - Knickerbocker Photo.)

Nana and Papa (Veronica Mulvaney Mulcahy and Joseph Mulcahy are seated at the "head" of the table, center and center-left as you look at the photograph. To the right of them: Margaret (Mulcahy) and Hugh Hennessy; Mary (Mulcahy) and Tony Boles; Loretta (Kelly) and John Mulcahy; the bride and groom, Ann (Danaher) and Gerard Mulcahy; one of Ann's sisters. Standing behind the bride and groom are another of Ann's sisters and her husband. Going in the other direction, starting from the Nana's left, are Vincent and Alice (Fox) Mulcahy; Catherine (Foley) and Matthew Mulcahy; Masie (Dardell) and Michael Mulcahy; and then three of Ann's cousins. The only Mulcahy sibling not present is James.

And tell me, don't you just love the layout of the ferns on the tablecloth? So simple and elegant!
(Wedding talk? I must be channeling Michelle.)

Rev. Joseph John Rickert, Peruvian Missionary

I've been up to my eyeballs in Rickerts lately. I've ascertained that Loretta did, in fact, marry a Joseph Rickert, and that all the Rickerts who were in plays and choruses with them were, in fact, his siblings. I'm sure I should show you those censuses, first, and I will get around to it, I promise, but first, this is really cool. I hope it's legible. It's a short article, a blurb, really, printed in 1946 and complete with picture, about Loretta and Joseph's oldest son, Joseph John Rickert, a priest. He looks so young to be a Peruvian missionary! The Alphonse Rickert mentioned is one of Joseph Sr's many brothers. (I couldn't figure out how to crop the giant irrelevant ad out, so just look for the picture of the priest in the top left-hand corner. You can zoom in with the buttons on top.)

Rev Joseph Rickert

St. Bernard's Annual Benefit

Quite the performer, actually, our Loretta Madigan. She seemed to do a lot of performing with the Rickert family. Here's the text of the article, from February 19, 1911, when the St. Bernard's Choir held their annual benefit performance:

Men and Women of St. Bernard's
Church Prepare for Show
On Tuesday evening, St. Bernard's R.
C. Church, Hicks and Rapelye streets,
of which the Rev. John M. Scheffel is
pastor, will hold its annual entertainment
and reception at the Kings County
Palace, 120 Schermerhorn street, under
the auspices of the St. Bernard choir,
for the benefit of the church. The evening
programme will be opened with a
"First Part Minstrel" with the entire
choir participating, as follows: Interlocutor,
Daniel Thompson; tambos, Miss
Hannah Todd, Joseph J. Rickert; bones,
Mrs. George Donovan, Daniel F, Sallows,
Michael Galvin, August A. Rickert,
James F. Ryan and Master G. Onken,
and Mrs. Frances Dilberger and
Mrs. August A. Rickert, soloists.
The chorus will be comprised of the
following: Joseph Dilberger, Frank J.
Fannon, William Baker, Peter F. Kestler,
Frank J. Rickert, George Kestler,
William J. Rickert, Frank Kestler, Adam
Wunner, the misses Lillian Harkens,
Amelia Heitzman, Clara Rickert, Lorretta
A. Madigan, Anna Rickert, Lillian
Sallows, Mary Gibbons, Josephine Lesinsky,
Margaret Barret. Immediately
following the minstrels , a specialty will
be rendered by Frank J. Rickert and
Miss Lorreta Madigan, Introducing vocal
and piano selections. The evening entertainment
will conclude with a one-act
farce entitled "Too Much Married,"
which will be enacted by a strong cast,
having as its concluding number, "Carmena,"
rendered by the choir. The production
is under the direction of Daniel
Thompson. assisted by Miss Anna
Kearon.

Apparently the Rickerts were quite the theatrical family. Besides Loretta and Joseph J, the show also included Frank J., Anna, Clara, William J., August A. and Mrs. August A., all Rickerts. I wonder if they were all brothers and sisters (besides Mrs. August, that is), or if they were cousins, if the girls might have been in-laws.

We can tell that Loretta and Joseph J. knew each other for at least 4 years before they were married in 1915. I also love the similarity in names between this production and the production of All the Comforts of Home that the St. Bernard players performed a few years later. The Dilbergers, the Rickerts, the Kestlers, Mary Gibbons, Adam Wunner, Michael Galvin - those are all among the names that show up in both articles. Imagine! They must have been friends!

Were they real people, these ancestors of ours?

Johanna Roche Madigan Death Notice, 9/17/1926

I'm loving this Fulton History website lately. Searching for Johanna Madigan never turned up her obituary, and I've discovered why: her first name was misspelled. I was searching around for "Madigan + Rickert" though, and this is what I found:

MADIGAN—On Wednesday. Sept.
15, 1926, at 341 President St.,
JOANNA MADIGAN, beloved mother
of Mrs. Joseph J. Rickert. Funeral
Saturday. 9:30 a.m. Solemn requiem
mass at St. Agnes' R. C. Church. Interment
Holy Cross Cemetery.

She was about 66I wonder why she was buried at Holy Cross when Matthew was buried at Calvary?

We've got an actress in the family!

From the March 23, 1913 edition of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle is the listing of a performance of All the Comforts of Home

Tho dramatic society connected with
the Roman Catholic Church of St. Bern-
ard, Hicks and Rapalyea streets, of which
the Rev. James King is rector, will produce
"All the Comforts of Home," in
Prospect Hall, on Tuesday evening, April
22. The play will he staged under the
direction of Joseph Collins. The cast will
include: James Dilberger, Al Collins,
August A. Rickert. Loretta Madigan, Mrs.
Joseph Donovan, Frank Rickert, Joseph
Nevins, Michael Galvin, Mary Gibbons,
Joseph J. Rickert, Frank Frischman, Anna
Rickert, Amelia Hertzman, Adam Wurmer,
James Hertzman, and George Kessler.

All the Comforts of Home, it appears, was a play written by William Gillette and first produced in 1890.



We see Loretta Madigan, who would have been about 25 years old, is a cast member. What interests me even more is that the cast also includes several members of the Rickert family. While our family information tells us that Loretta Madigan married Joseph Rickett, I recently looked in the Italiangen.org marraige index to see if I could find Loretta.

The index has a Loretta A. Madigan marrying a Joseph J. Rickert on April 20, 1915.

I thought it might have been mistranscribed, but this has me thinking otherwise. I'd imagine our source was mistaken, and Loretta married the Joseph J. Rickert she may have met in the church play.

How cute!

Madigan Mortgage, 4th Place

I don't really know how to read these publications of mortgages, but this was published in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle on October 25, 1900, about a year and a half after Johanna got the house:

Madigan, Johanna, to Annie E Lutkins,
Fourth place, nr Court st . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000

Michael Roche's Obituary, May 23, 1925

ROCHE—On Friday, May 22,
1925, at 321 President St., MICHAEL
F., beloved son of the late Michael
and Bridget Roche and brother 'of
Mrs. Johanna Madigan. Funeral
Monday. 9 a.m. Solemn requiem
mass at-St. Agnes R. C. Church. Interment
Holy Cross Cemetery. Auto
cortege.

At the cool Fulton History website, which has hundreds of years of searchable NYS newspapers, I found the Brooklyn Daily Eagle's announcement of the death of Michael Roche, Johanna Roche Madigan's younger brother. If he died in 1925, he was about 63. From the way his survivors are listed, it appears he never married or had children. It does appear that Johanna lived past 1925, but their other siblings (John and Mary) didn't even though they should have been younger. I don't know what auto cortege means.

I wonder what the F is for. It's in his father's name, too. I bet I could find out by ordering his death certificate, but lately I'm trying to avoid spending money on records I don't need until the compulsive need for more records overtakes me, because I know that when that happens, I'll start ordering things anyway. I just do that sometimes.

Matthew Madigan death notice

Finally finally finally, I've found evidence of Matthew Madigan's death. I'd searched and search the Brooklyn Eagle for evidence thereof, and never with any luck. See how the name "Matthew" is broken across two lines? It doesn't come up in a search because of that. But when I finally thought to search for Johanna Madigan, up it popped, because her name is complete.

Let that be a lesson to you. Don't ignore anyone.

He died September 11, 1892. He was born in County Clare (Kilrush, we're told). The funeral was held at his home and at St. Mary Star of the Sea Church, and he was buried at Calvary Cemetery. No mention of his children, but likely, since he died only months after the family was recorded on the 1892 NYS Census, young Matthew and Josephine survived him.

He's listed as being 50 here, though he was said to be 51 on the 1892 NYS Census.

Another piece of the housing puzzle

On June 15, 1899, this notice appeared under "Conveyances" for June 14. It lends a little more information for what I consider the unusual circumstance of Matthew Madigan's wife and youngest daughter moving around the corner while Mary and Michael Mulcahy got the family house at 85 Luqueer St. I don't 100% understand the language used, but it seems like Johanna's father and brother sold to her half of the house at 4th place.

Interesting.

Update: On second thought, it occurs to me that what this excerpt might be trying to get across is that Michael F. Roche (Michael Roche Sr.) named his two oldest children as heirs, so they each got 1/2 of the house, and Johanna bought out Michael's share? That's a possibility, I just wish I understood what the wording of this clipping was actually trying to say.

Meet the Roches!

Here is Johanna Roche Madigan, age 20, living with her parents and siblings in 1880. Her parents are Michael and Bridget, age 44, both Irish-born. Michael doesn't have a job. Johanna, 20, is a seamstress, and her brother Michael, 18, is a stone-cutter. The two youngest siblings, John and Mary, and 12 and 10, and both are at school.

530 Clinton St. is literally directly around the corner from 85 Luqueer St.

View Larger Map
Johanna may have known the Madigans well before she married Matthew. She probably wasn't young enough to have been friends with Mary and Margaret, but she's definitely closer in age to her step-daughters than to her husband.

Update: It seems I can't get that map to post so that you can actually see the location of both houses, but if hit the "-" button to zoom out just once, you can get a good idea of the distance between the two.

I've been thinking about the rest of the Madigans lately. . .

Finding the rest of Matthew and Johanna Madigan's family in the 1892 NYS Census got me thinking about that part of the family. I've ignored them a little bit; maybe I'm guilty of stereotyping the "ugly stepmother." I'd never found Johanna Madigan in 1920, though I'd found her, with daughter Loretta, in 1900 and 1910. I assumed that that was because I'd looked and never found her. I don't think I had, because as soon as I typed her name in Ancestry.com's search engine tonight, she popped up, first name on the list, living with her younger brother Michael Roach.

She's 59 and widowed; he's 57 and appears to be married, though his wife isn't in the household. They live at 271 Sackett St. (This appears to be 8 or 9 blocks from where her step-daugher Mary Madigan Mulcahy was living with her family at 85 Luqueer St.) Michael is a watchman at a dock.

I'd found a couple earlier census that I thought might have been Johanna living with her parents' family, but never had any corroborating evidence. (Can you tell I'm watching Law & Order as I type?) With this evidence that her brother was named Michael, I'm more encouraged to think that it's actually her, and I'll post that soon.

Found the Mulcahys, right around the corner

In the far left column of this page, we find the Mulcahys, in the same district of the 12th Ward as Mary's parents. Michael is 32, Irish-born, and his occupation is "Liquors." Mary is 22. Their two children (thus far) are listed as Maggie (Margaret Mulcahy Hennessy) and James. Maggie is 3, and James is 1.

One thing this does show is that the Mulcahys weren't living at 85 Luqueer St. while Matthew Madigan was alive. Given that, I really continue to wonder how they ended up living there, while his wife and minor daughter end up in an apartment around the corner. I may - emphasize may - have come across notice of proceedings on the estate of Matthew Madigan. Following up on that is something I intend to do, though it will (I think) require a trip to a Brooklyn courthouse, which itself will require taking a day off work. But I'm getting there. And we'll figure it out eventually.

But that's really all the information we find here. Why does it excite me so?

New Madigan children

On the left-hand column of the right-hand page of this 1892 NYS Census record, we find the Madigans. Mary Ann Madigan Mulcahy isn't there; she's already been married to Michael Mulcahy for about 4 years. I expect to encounter them shortly. However, we find lots of new information. One of the later census records of Johanna and Loretta Madigan showed that Johanna had given birth to 4 children, 3 of whom were no longer living. Today, we meet two of them.

The family is listed as parents Matthew Madigan, 51, a "cartman," and Johanna Madigan, 31. From his first marriage (we know this, though it's not evident on the record) are children Margaret Madigan, 19, and James Madigan, 21. From this second marriage are listed three children, Loretta and two others. Loretta is 4, Matthew (Jr.) is 2, and Josephine is 1.

I've encountered clues - that I'm looking to verify - that Matthew Madigan died in early 1893. If the information that Johanna had given birth to 4 children is accurate, either they've already lost 1 child, or she is currently pregnant - or about to be - with their last child.

On their way to Ireland!

It occurred to me that since we know Michael Mulcahy took, at the very least, his sons Matthew and Joseph to Ireland in 1905 - because we know they came back from Ireland - we know, well, that they went to Ireland. I hopped on Ancestry.com and looked at their database of UK Arrival Lists. This record, while not matching the Mulcahys exactly - it claims, for example, that they're all British subjects (Irish) rather than American, while their return records call them all US citizens - it's close enough that I think it's them. An M. Mulcahy, with 2 children, M. Mulcahy and J. Mulcahy, arrived in Ireland about a month before they left Ireland. (Good length for a trip.) This eliminates a few things I had thought unlikely but possibly:

• The rest of the family did not go to Ireland. I thought it possible that Mary and the rest of the kids might have come and just left earlier or later, but this appears not to be the case.
• The trip to Ireland is not the reason the Mulcahys aren't listed at 85 Luqueer St. in 1900. I thought it possible - but again, unlikely - that maybe this trip to Ireland had been a long trip to Ireland, 1900-1905. Again, not the case. Where were they in 1900?

M(ichael) is listed as a laborer.

Corporal Works of Mercy

I can’t help but think that I’m doing a good thing by doing genealogy. True, it’s fun, it’s a compulsion, it’s exciting, and it’s nerdy – all things that attract me to it – but maybe it’s also an objectively good thing. Keeping the memories of people around, a century or more after they’ve died; that’s a good thing, right? I’m just doing my best not to let a person’s entire earthly existence fade into the ether. I was thinking about this today – trying to come up with good excuses to drag my uninterested cousin and my not-very-interested boyfriend to a cemetery tomorrow, perhaps – and it occurred to me that maybe – just maybe – genealogy could be considered a Corporal Work of Mercy. It’s not often, these days, that we get to fulfill the one about burying the dead ourselves. Tending the sick, feeding the hungry – those are things we can do, day-to-day, or at least occasionally. We go to funerals when necessary and act respectfully, and don’t speak ill of the dead sometimes. That’s as much as we feel obliged to bury the dead. But what is burying the dead, really? Why is it encouraged? Why is it merciful? [Mercy-full] In essence, we’re entreated to bury the dead in order to show respect to the temporal remains of souls who have departed this life. What is genealogy? Though their physical remains were buried decades or even centuries ago, we’re also respecting the remains – the records, the stories – of the temporal lives of those who came before us. What could be more respectful than pulling from the brink of extinction the memory of a Julia or a James Thomas Toner, a Malinda or a Mary O’Hara, a Charles Thomas Loughlin? Could uncovering the dead be as merciful as burying them?

"Genealogy Saves the Day"

Michelle sent me a link to this article, with the comment "I saw this on the Today Show this morning, and it made me think of you, because the wife solved the mystery by using genealogy records!"

Good to know everyone thinks of me when genealogy comes up.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

"Mother and Son are Reunited--After 43 Years"

January 13, 1914 - Hugh Quinn's Death Certificate

-->

State of New York

Department of Health of the City of New York

Bureau of Records

Standard Certificate of Death

Registered No. 1053

1. Place of Death

Borough of Brooklyn

No. 1450 Fulton St.

Character of premises: tenement

2. Full Name Hugh James Quinn

3. Sex Male

4. Color or Race White

5. Single, Married, Widowed, or Divorced: married

6. Date of birth unknown

7. Age 46 years

8. Occupation

a. trade, profession, or particular kind of work: engineer

b. industry office building

9. Birthplace Ireland

How long in US? 28 yrs

How long resident in City of New York? 28 yrs

10. Name of Father Hugh Quinn

11. Birthplace of Father Ireland

12. Maiden Name of Mother Bridget Chambers

13. Birthplace of Mother Ireland

15. Date of death January 13, 1914

16. I hereby certify that the foregoing particulars (Nos. 1 to 14 inclusive) are correct as near as can be ascertained, and I further certify that I attended the deceased from Sept 1 1913 to January 13 1914, that I last saw him alive on the 11 day of January 1914, that death occurred on the date stated above at 2 PM, and that the cause of death was as follows: Tabes dorsalis, duration: 3 yrs

Contributory: Acute pulmonary congestion

Witness my hand this 14 day of Jan, 1914

Signature: Alfred W. White, MD

Address 360 Halsey St.

17. Place of Burial Holy Cross Cemetary

Date of Burial Jan 15, 1914

18. Undertaker [illegible]

Address [illegible]

The above is a transcription of Hugh James Quinn's death certificate. (There's also a stamp on the back saying his wife Mary Quinn released the body to the undertakers.) The address given is 1450 Fulton St., which would have been just down the block from where the Quinns were living 4 years earlier, in 1910.

His parents are listed as Hugh Quinn and Bridget Chambers, which conflicts with the information that Uncle Jack gave me, saying that Hugh's parents were William Quinn and Margaret McCandles. According to that, which he took from a birth certificate, Hugh was born February 25, 1868, in Moyarget Upper, Ramoan, Ballycastle, County Antrim (Northern Ireland). That birth date fits just about exactly with the age given here, so I'm not inclined to doubt it.

A Slightly Less Confusing Quinn Family in 1910

By 1910, the Quinns have moved from 332 Bergen St. to 1498 Fulton St. Hugh J. and Mary are now listed as 40, having aged only 7 years in the past 10. They've been married 17 years - that's the same, and gives a wedding date of around 1893, so they were presumably married in the United States, not Ireland. Mary has given birth to 5 children, all still living. They are listed as Nora A. (might Agnes have been her middle name?), 15; Mary J., 13; Helen, 10; Martin J., 8; and Terence, 5.

Hugh now says he immigrated in 1885, though that's really not too far off of the 1886 he said ten years ago. Mary's immigration date is still 1887. Hugh is an Engineer in the industry "Building" and Nora/Agnes works as a Saleslady in a department store.

Also part of the household are Hugh O'Donnell, listed as Hugh's nephew, and Thomas Keane, listed as a boarder. According to Uncle Jack, Hugh O'Donnell was a cousin, a descendant of Martin Gillen, who was born and died in Ireland, living 104 years, from 1825 to 1929. Hugh O'Donnell immigrated in 1906 and has filed his Declaration of Intent to become a citizen (indicated as "Pa," for "First Papers," on the census). Thomas Keane immigrated in 1909 and is an alien. Hugh O'Donnell is working as a Motorman on a Streetcar, while Thomas Keane is a Bartender at a Liquor Saloon.

And that, folks, is the last census record you'll see of the Quinns, except for Molly of course being married to JJ in the 1930 Census. I know that Hugh dies in 1914, but I simply cannot find the rest of the family in 1920, or anyone but Molly in 1930.

A very confusing Quinn Family in 1900

Don't worry, I haven't forgotten the Quinns!



These two images are of the census records of the family and Hugh Quinn and Mary Gillen, Grandma Molly's parents. The family begins at the very bottom of the first page, where are listed Hugh Quinn, 33, who was born in April 1867; Mary Quinn, 33, also born in April 1867; and Nora Quinn, 5, born in December 1894. Nora Quinn, as best anyone can tell, is Aunt Agnes, Molly's older sister. She appears as Nora in all the census records I've seen, and I simply can't figure out why.

The family continues on the next page, where, inexplicably, the next child listed is not Molly, who should be about 3, but a 13-year-old daughter named Anna, who Uncle Jack and Uncle Ted have never heard of. Born in March of 1887, she predates this marriage considerably. (Mary and Hugh say they've been married 7 years.) I wonder whether this was a half-sister? Could Hugh have been married before? It's an avenue I'd like to explore, though I'm not sure where to begin.

Molly doesn't appear on this census record, and, again, I don't know where she could be. We skip right to Helen, who finally offers us no surprises. She's supposed to exist, she's supposed to be named Helen, she's supposed to be about about a year old, and she's supposed to be here. Thank you, Aunt Helen, for being everything you're supposed to be! Helen was born in July, 1899.

Next, in case all the confusion led to believe that maybe these weren't our Quinns, and in case the lovely Helen wasn't enough to convince you otherwise, is a boarder named Mark Gillin. Jack and Ted have referred to both an "Uncle Mark" and to his having a son named Mark, and combined with the fact that he shares a last name with Mary Gillen (Gillin?) Quinn, I'm assuming that this is her brother, Grandma Molly's uncle. He was born in May of 1871, and gives his age as 29.

Mary has given birth to 3 children. (Presumably, these are Nora/Agnes, Mary (Molly), and Helen, not Nora/Agnes, mysterious Anna, and Helen, but I don't really know.) All are living. Hugh says he immigrated in 1886, and Mary in 1887. He is naturalized. Uncle Mark says he immigrated in 1890 and is also a naturalized citizen. Hugh was an Engineer who rented his home, and Uncle Mark was a Porter.

So this census sheds very little light and brings to the fore lots of interesting but confusing questions:

1. Who was Anna?
2. Was Hugh married twice?
3. Where is Molly?
4. Why is Agnes always called Nora?

Anyone have any answers, or suggestions of where to find them?

Revealing 1892 NYS Census Record

Another 1892 NYS Census record, this one of the Loughlins. Thomas P. is 56 and Elizabeth is 34 (he's 22 years her senior!). They have four children - Thomas, 11; John E., 8; William, 6; and Michael, 5 m. Michael is a new name to me, and I wonder if he died young, before the 1900 census was taken. Thomas Loughlin looks like he was a "ship calker" (caulker?), and he was born in Ireland, while his wife and children were all born in Brooklyn. Significant is the name listed next, after Michael's. The 1892 Census isn't divided into households, but I imagine that this Loughlin household includes the Mary Tonner listed just after them. This is almost certainly Elizabeth's mother Mary Cullen Toner. If the baptismal date we have for her is correct, she should be about 75, not the 69 she lists, and of course their name was spelled with 1 'n', but I'm sure this is her.

It appears that Richard had died prior to 1892, thus Mary living with her children without him. We also learn that Mary was still alive in 1892. Interestingly, she no longer has her own household, but is living with her children, despite having at least one daughter still unmarried, Julia. I have no idea where Julia is, but hope to find her as I continue looking through these unidexed records. I wouldn't be surprised to find her living with one of her other sister, Mary Toner Murphy [we think] or Louise Toner Deegan. I still have never seen records of her before 1900, so I'd really like to find Julia in this census.

Patrick Mulvaney in the 1892 NYS Census!

Those of you who are not familiar with the intimate workings of the genealogical universe may not know how exciting it is to have an 1892 New York State Census available online from FamilySearch. The 1890 Federal Census was destroyed, so there's a huge information void between 1880 and 1900. These records aren't indexed, though, so I've been paging through them in order to come across our relatives. I'd particularly like to find Julia Toner (since I've never seen her on a census prior to 1900 (unless she's Judith, argh!), and the Madigans and Mulcahys; I've never seen Matthew Madigan living with his second wife and youngest daughter, and I'd like to know whether or not the Mulcahys were living at 85 Luqueer St. before Matthew died or not. I don't have either of those for you, though, but I do have (drum roll, please!) Patrick Mulvaney, living with his brother, in 1892.


Patrick is towards the bottom right, listed as 30 years old, and a machinist, as he's always been. He appears to be - and I'm making assumptions, here - living with his brother John, the John that Betty and John tell us was a Brooklyn alderman around the turn of the century. It appears that John's family are wife Moria (Maria?) and children Agnes, Thomas, and Stella. John is currently a Foreman, though it doesn't say in what industry. He's listed as being 4 years older than Patrick, though when they were kids, he was only 2 years older.

He's not living with Julia yet, of course, as they weren't married until about a year later, in 1893. Back in the day, people didn't live together until they got married.

William Toner driving a cab?

So there I was on the Brooklyn Eagle, as I often am, searching various names and combinations of names and addresses to see if I come up with anything relevant, and I searched for William Toner, Julia's brother. William's not an unusual name, and neither is Toner, so I was not at all certain that any of the 3 results I got would be him. One was this, from February 24, 1889:

There's nothing in particular that makes me think that that it's our William Toner, until the very end. "The cab is the property of Mr. Murphy. . ." Now, Murphy's an even more common name, but it is the case that our William Toner had a brother-in-law [I think] named Thomas Murphy. Probably just a coincidence, but maybe something to think about.

Silkworth Photography Studio

Thanks to Thomas MacEntee, I was pointed to this thread on the Ancestry.com message boards, about Amos Silkworth, the photographer of the photo of the mystery man in the last post. It says,

"I am Amos Silkworth's great grandson. I have quite a number of his photographs, and remember his studio logo from my childhood. Amos Jr. married Mary Biffar in 1985. Mary's father Henry Biffar originated the photography studio, so we can assume that the Silkworth name did not appear independently until after that date. By the turn of the century it seems that Amos had earned his fortune in the photography business and retired to Mattituck, N.Y."

So it looks like we can date the photograph of the man to between 1885 and around 1900, so he is clearly of the same generation as the woman, and as Julia and Patrick, though I'd be against assuming that the man and the woman are husband and wife - wouldn't it be reasonable to think that a couple having their pictures taken would go to the same photographer? I wouldn't say they can't be man and wife, just that I don't think it's safe to assume they are until we've identified them.

And now for something a little different. . .

Here we've finally reached the mystery pictures that Maureen sent me. Does anyone have any idea who any of these people are?

We're positing that these are Mulvaney children, possibly James, who was among the oldest, with one of his younger siblings? All speculation, of course. Based on my very rudimentary knowledge of photography, I'm going to say that it must have been taken after 1880. However, this type of pretty standard black-and-white photography remained prominent until color photographs came into being in the second half of the 20th century. Perhaps someone who knows a little more about clothing styles or photography could narrow it down a little more, but that's as much as I've got. I do have to point out, though, all of the really cool aspects of this picture - the awesome old-fashioned baby buggy, the older boy's suspenders, his slightly awkward and stiff-armed stance while supporting the baby, the expression on the face of the younger boy running through the doorway, and, most of all, the kid in the sombrero to the bottom right. Really? Aren't these Irish kids in turn-of-the-century Brooklyn? Who's wearing a sombrero?
This woman is a mystery. This type of photography, which used albumen, was popular from the 1850s through the 1890s and the "carte-de-visite" way of printing photographs on cards that could be given away was most popular from 1860-1870. After that, it began to be supplanted by the slightly larger "Cabinet Cards," of which I think this may be one. However, if you look closely, you can see that the circular mark in the center of the bottom margin is bragging that the Photographers were awarded the "Medal of Merit for Photography" in 1890. This picture, at least, must be from 1890 or later. It must have been someone of Julia and Patrick's generation, since by the time any of their children were as old as the woman in the picture, this type of photography was largely obsolete. Aunt Betty says that she's seen picture of Julia as a young woman, and that this isn't her. It could still, of course, be one of Julia's sisters, or her brother William's wife (if he married, and we don't know if he did), or Patrick's sister Mary Ann, or one of his brothers' wives.
This picture is even less easy to pinpoint, as there's no date on it at all. Again, it's probably someone of Julia and Patrick's generation, although, since it could be older than the other one, it might be of someone older than they. I'm at least sure that it looks nothing like the one photograph of Patrick that I've seen. Again, though, there are Patrick's brothers, John, Thomas, and James, Julia's brother William, or any of their sisters' husbands, if we want to assume that it's a relative.

More pictures from Maureen

These pictures from Maureen are all of her dad, Donald Mulvaney:
This is Donald, probably in the area of 1926-27? Just guessing.

This is Donald Mulvaney and Donald Cahill, riding horses named Tom and Jerry, in East Hampton, August, 1929.

This, again, is Donald Mulvaney and Donald Cahill in August, 1929.

Pictures from the James Mulvaney Family

Maureen Mulvaney, a cousin of ours who I met via ancestry.com (gotta love the internet!) recently sent me a number of pictures and family documents from her branch of the Mulvaney family. (She's a grand-daughter of James, Nana's older brother.) We'll start with the identifiable pictures in this post, and then move on to our mystery pictures, hoping against hope that someone might have a clue as to who these people are.


This is a picture of Joan and Florence Mulvaney, the two daughters of James and Florence Mulvaney. Picture dated August, 1936. According to census records, Joan was born around 1927 and Florence around 1929, so they'd be approximately 9 and 7.

This is Donald, Joan, and Florence with their parents James and Florence. Also dated August, 1936. Donald was born around 1925, so he should be about 11.

This picture appears to have been taken on the same day as the first two of these pictures, but it ended up with their branch of the family, while the other two pictures of that day ended up with ours. Betty and John did the IDing, since Maureen and I weren't sure. I looked at it, and thought that the man on the far right looked like Papa, but dismissed the thought. Wrong side of the family. Except that this is a picture of Julia with her children-in-law, so it is, in fact, Papa. With Julia in the polka-dotted dress, the others are, from left to right, Steve Kessell (husband of Grace), Florence Mulvaney (wife of James), Elizabeth Mulvaney (wife of Thomas), and John Daniels (wife of Auntie Mae).

136 Images Later . . .

. . . I've finally found the Mulvaneys! I was expecting to come across them living much closer to the John Mulvaneys than they actually were, though, as addresses aren't listed in the 1865 NYS Census, I don't actually know how far they were away, geographically, just that they were many pages away. The writing on these pages are very faint, so I'll tell you that the Mulvaneys are the second family on the right side of the page. James is listed as 46 and Bridget as 50. Thomas is 11, John is 8, Patrick is 6, Mary Ann is 3, and James is a month old. Bridget says she's the mother of 5 children, so it appears that all of her children are still living at the time. Both parents have been married only once, and James is still a carpenter. He has been naturalized, but Bridget is still an alien. (I'm going to have to do some research on naturalization laws in the nineteenth century; a wife was apparently not automatically naturalized by the fact of her being married to a citizen.)

This was from page 136 of the 12th Ward of Brooklyn in the 1865 NYS Census on the FamilySearch Pilot Site.