Catharine Reilly or Reiley or Riley

John Arsenault

Catharine (Kate) was my maternal great grandmother. She was born circa 1853 in Liverpool and married Clarence Herbert Gilson (an American mariner) in 1871 in Walton on the Hill, Lancashire. Her parents are identified in various records (U.S. and U.K.) as Thomas Riley and Elizabeth Mack. I would like some guidance on how to confirm Catharine's birth and how to trace the lives of her parents.

Graham Buckell

John

Happy to help if I can. Can you please say where you have obtained the information you already have? Are these people already on Family Tree? If so what are their ID numbers?

Regards

Graham Buckell

John Arsenault

Graham - Thank you for your offer to help. All of these individuals are already on Family Tree. I have re-posted below my original comment including the appropriate ID numbers.

Catharine (Kate) (ID L7CD-MT6) was my maternal great grandmother. She was born circa 1853 in Liverpool and married Clarence Herbert Gilson (ID L7CD-MTD) (an American mariner) in 1871 in Walton on the Hill, Lancashire. Her parents are identified in various records (U.S. and U.K.) as Thomas Riley (ID LTBV-VXM) and Elizabeth Mack (ID LTBV-J8S). I would like some guidance on how to confirm Catharine's birth and how to trace the lives of her parents.

The sources and other documents should give you a good idea of what research I have done so far. I will add more as I find it.

John

Paul W

@John Arsenault

This is very much a long shot at present, but the only Thomas & Elizabeth Riley I have found so far at Liverpool could be the couple who are found in the 1861 census at Liverpool, with daughters Ellen, 12, and "Cathn", 9. See https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M75D-RD7?treeref=L7CD-MT6.

These could well be the children of Thomas Riley and Elizabeth McNamara - marriage registered at Liverpool in March 1845 Quarter (see FreeBMD). A Catherine Riley's birth was registered at Liverpool in the September 1851 Quarter and an Ellen Riley, ditto, in September 1848 Quarter - both GRO index records showing their mother's maiden name as McNamara - possibly aka Elizabeth "Mack"?

Finding these records was relatively easy - discovering / confirming the exact identity of Catherine's parents will probably be a little more difficult! However, if this couple are the parents of your Catherine, obtaining their 1845 marriage certificate will give you the names of Thomas' and Elizabeth's fathers, of course.

I will try to return to this later.

John Arsenault

Paul - Thank you for your input. I believe I have seen that 1861 census record but I wasn't able to take it any further. I also hadn't thought of the possibility that "Mack" was a shortened version of another name. In any event I had come to the same conclusion that confirming the exact identity of Catherine's parents will be difficult.

I've tried to find each of these folks in later UK censuses and in immigration records but with no definite answers. The only record I have that almost definitely refers to Clarence and Catherine is a marriage record dated 6 July 1871from St. Michael's Parish, Toxteth, Walton on the Hill. Everything on this record matches other records I have seen, including Clarence's signature. See ID No. L7CD-MTD in Family Tree for copies of these records.

Paul W

John -

Of course there is no firm evidence for these parents, but I have just come back to FamilySearch before my bedtime (it's 11.15pm here in London!) and noticed the following: (For some reason I'm not able to copy the URL here at present)

(In any case, you can find this record via the page at https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?count=20&q.givenName=Thomas&q.givenName.exact=on&q.marriageLikeDate.from=1845&q.marriageLikeDate.to=1845&q.marriageLikePlace=lancashire&q.marriageLikePlace.exact=on&q.surname=Riley&q.surname.exact=on&treeref=LTBV-VXM)

So at least (without having to purchase a copy of the certificate from the GRO here in England) you have the basic facts of Thomas Riley and Elizabeth MacNamara above (noting the "Mac" instead of "Mc" prefix in this record, although that is not of great relevance, of course, as is whether "Riley" or "Reilly" variants were more commonly used).

I'll leave it at that for now, hoping Graham might be able to chip-in with some advice, which usually proves to be very helpful. (I'm afraid I'm no expert on Lancashire records, most of my Wrightson family members having being born in either Yorkshire or Durham.)

BTW - Just about to sign off when I noticed another interesting entry on the same page referenced above: A little further down you will see there is the record of (another?) Thomas Riley (father also shown at Peter) marrying a Sarah Evans on 26 May 1845 at Liverpool. Co-incidence?

Paul W

For Catherine Riley 1861 census records (Lancashire only) see https://www.freecen.org.uk/search_queries/6205bb21f4040b769338f41a?locale=en. (FreeCEN records do not appear to include much for 1871.)

John Arsenault

The 1861 census record for Thomas and Elizabeth, with children Ellen and Catherine, shows an address of 41 Jordan St. in Liverpool. The original of the marriage record of Thomas Riley and Elizabeth MacNamara in 1845 gives an address for Thomas of Jordan Street. I don't know how common it was for Liverpudlians in this era to stay in the same place for 16 years but, this seems like more than a coincidence.

Graham Buckell

I am struggling to add anything useful to the work already done by Paul.

I tried plugging the information from above into Ancestry to see whether it came up with anything. The answer is nothing conclusive.

There is a possible baptism for Thomas in 1814 to Peter and Mary at St Peter's Priory, Liverpool.

I hunted the 1851 census. The best I could find gave

Ellen is Thomas' mother and Josh his cousin. The address is not Jordan St.

Tried the 1841 census without finding anything likely to be correct.

A big problem is that Riley is, as I am sure you know, a common Irish name, and people of Irish descent were common in Liverpool. So needles and haystacks come to mind!

Sorry I cannot be of more help.

Regards

Graham

John Arsenault

Graham - Thank you for your efforts. Needles and haystacks is certainly an apt description.

I wonder if either you or Paul have had any luck obtaining marriage records directly from the church records. Are they likely to have more information than the civil records contain? I have tried in the past but received no response to my inquiry.

John

Graham Buckell

Post 1837 the format of a marriage record was dictated by civil registration. Thus the church record is in the same format as the civil record and the former was used to create the latter. People married in church do not need to separately register their marriage at the registry office. This system continues to this day although, of course, far fewer get married at church these days.