Yes I realise this - so she probably isn't the one who marries Thomas Briggs and has a child just before being transported to Tas because that woman appears to be the one who marries Collins. And if she is not the one who married Briggs, then she's probably not the one who baptised Leithead's daughter (who appears to have been born about the same time as another child she doesn't baptise) on the same day she married Briggs. So - who on earth is she and how does she get sent to Tas as Margaret Kenny per the Asia???? Are there other cases of people pretending to be convicts they weren't? If you were going to do that you'd want to be fairly sure that the convict you were claiming to be had a better record than you had? Minuet At 09:11 PM 25/01/2009, you wrote: >Hi Minuet > >She could not have been the one who married Collins in 1844 because you said >that she was down in Tasmania by December 1841. This permission to marry took >place in Maitland NSW.

I have no help for you Minuet, but I just wanted to say what an excellent discourse this is to follow between you and Lesley. I'm enjoying the logic and the problem solving- and like always when Lesley is involved, I'm learning. Thank you both Rosalee ----- Original Message ----- From: "Minuet" <minuet9@internode.on.net> To: <aus-pt-jackson-convicts@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [PJ] KENNY, BRIGGS & help pls > Yes I realise this - so she probably isn't the one > who marries Thomas Briggs and has a child just before being > transported to Tas because that woman appears to be the one > who marries Collins. And if she is not the one who married Briggs, > then she's probably not the one who baptised Leithead's daughter > (who appears to have been born about the same time as another > child she doesn't baptise) on the same day she married Briggs. > So - who on earth is she and how does she get sent to Tas as > Margaret Kenny per the Asia???? > > Are there other cases of people pretending to be convicts they weren't? > If you were going to do that you'd want to be fairly sure that > the convict you were claiming to be had a better record than you had? > > Minuet > > > At 09:11 PM 25/01/2009, you wrote: >>Hi Minuet >> >>She could not have been the one who married Collins in 1844 because you >>said >>that she was down in Tasmania by December 1841. This permission to marry >>took >>place in Maitland NSW. > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > AUS-PT-JACKSON-CONVICTS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Minuet, The Margaret Kenny who was sent to VDL in 1841 is definitely the one who arrived with that name. The Sydney Records noted in the VDL records are all correct and I doubt if there was a When she had her Ticket of Leave cancelled in January 1835 her name is given as Margaret Kenny in the Sydney Gazette dated 17 January 1835 The Sydney Gazette of 20 February 1841 gives her name as Margaret McKenny, REE - theft again :) She did spend time in the Female Factory so those records may hold something. You have to be careful using the Female Factory Index as the names have not been matched against the Indents...... and some women, although still convicts, are listed under their husbands surname. It is interesting that once free and then convicted in 1841 her maiden name was used. As a free person one would think that, if married, her husbands surname would be used. She had Catherine, you say in about 1838/9 and it appears that she went by the name Kenny (and variations) although you did today mention Casey.... a possible variation of Kenny. From that it may mean that Catherine was born out of wedlock and she probably accompanied Margaret during her stay at the Female Factory When Margaret arrived she was assigned to Lieutenant Brown at Bathurst. I don't know how long she was with him - it could have been a few days or up until 1833 when she obtained her Ticket of Leave. It's a pity that the convicts whose surnames start with the letter K are missing from the 1837 General Return of Convicts book as that may have made it easier for you. I think I see the word adultery in her VDL records.... but that is for another list Lesley Uebel mailto:ckennedy@bigpond.net.au CLAIM A CONVICT http://users.bigpond.net.au/convicts/index.html -----Original Message----- From: aus-pt-jackson-convicts-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:aus-pt-jackson-convicts-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Minuet Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 9:46 PM To: aus-pt-jackson-convicts@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [PJ] KENNY, BRIGGS & help pls Yes I realise this - so she probably isn't the one who marries Thomas Briggs and has a child just before being transported to Tas because that woman appears to be the one who marries Collins. And if she is not the one who married Briggs, then she's probably not the one who baptised Leithead's daughter (who appears to have been born about the same time as another child she doesn't baptise) on the same day she married Briggs. So - who on earth is she and how does she get sent to Tas as Margaret Kenny per the Asia???? Are there other cases of people pretending to be convicts they weren't? If you were going to do that you'd want to be fairly sure that the convict you were claiming to be had a better record than you had? Minuet