Hi Di, Just further to the Sunbury entry - it's definitely Sunbury based on the other entries for children of Michael and Bridget ...... KERBY Bridget, b SUNB, 1865 KERLEY James, b SBURY, 1866 KIRBEY Daniel, b SUNBURY, 1873 KIRBY Honora, b SUNB, d 1873 And that covers quite a few spelling variations! <vbg> Regards ............ Susie Z ----- Original Message ----- From: "Di Randell" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [GEELONG] KERLEY Sbury Sunbury > Thank you for that Bill...it's looking good, then, if it's close to > Geelong! > > Di > Brisbane > >> > I'm interested in a James KERLEY born Sbury, Victoria 1866, son of >> > Michael

it's definitely Sunbury based on the > other entries for children of Michael and Bridget ...... > > > > >> > I'm interested in a James KERLEY born Sbury, Victoria 1866, son of > >> > Michael Thanks for your input, Adelina, Bill, John & Susie I tracked down the marriage of my couple, Michael KERLEY and Bridget KERBY, and then Michael goes by the name KERBY! No place given for marriage so that's no help. I guess in the 1860s Geelong and Sunbury would have been considered a long way apart. I think I'll give Michael KERLEY/KERBY and Bridget a miss for the time being and concentrate on the KERLEYs who were definitely at Geelong: I have plenty to sort out with them. Thanks again Di Brisbane

Hi Di, Just a small correction to something you said ... "then Michael goes by the name KERBY!" This isn't correct - the person transcribing from the register for the index read the name as KERBY which could actually be KERLEY. Until someone checked the original certificate / register, this is purely the transcriber's interpretation and definitely not the name Michael was going by. Regards ................. Susie Z ----- Original Message ----- From: "Di Randell" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:44 PM Subject: Re: [GEELONG] KERLEY KIRBY KIRBEY Sunbury Geelong > I tracked down the marriage of my couple, Michael KERLEY and Bridget > KERBY, and then Michael goes by the name KERBY!

> > small correction to something you said ... "then Michael goes by the > name KERBY!" > > - the person transcribing from the register for the index > read the name as KERBY which could actually be KERLEY. Until someone > checked the original certificate / register, this is purely the > transcriber's interpretation Yes, thanks for that Susie .. it's true ... I probably said that as I'm thinking Michael's probably not mine anyway ... I'm not giving up entirely on him, though ... I've also wondered if Bridget, his wife, shouldn't be KERLEY instead of KERBY .. a case perhaps of her maiden name not given? I've seen my KERLEYs (KERLEY is my maiden name) spelt, Kirley, Curley, Curly & back in Ireland, a whole heap of other ways, but must say I wasn't on the look out for KERBY/KERBEY as an alternative..but it's clear, with transcription, that that is a very real possibility. I see KERBY marriages Vic. Pioneer Index 1836-1888 and a couple of them have Limerick, Ireland as their birth place .. now I'd get really excited if their birth place was County Louth, Ireland, even England, instead of County Limerick! I do know that I'm not related to any early births in Ireland unless they were from Northern Ireland e.g. counties Monaghan, Armagh, Louth or the north of England to where a lot of them emigrated. There's two KERLEY families from Geelong that I've been researching, on and off, for years: James KERLEY born about 1831 (his marriage certificate says he was born Limerick) who married Anne MARNANE (spelling varies) from Co. Tipperary, Ireland. I have purchased this certificate and it definitely says he was born Limerick. He didn't sign with a X so he was literate.... do you think he'd know if he was born Limerick and not Louth? I have sorted out this family. James KERLEY was a Prison Warder. With the other incidences of KERLEY/KERBY from Limerick I think that this fellow and his family are not mine. The other early KERLEY from Geelong is Joseph KERLEY. He was a Councillor at Geelong as well as running a carrier business in which he employed a number of people. Like James KERLEY above, he was a Catholic. Joseph KERLEY was born about 1830: he left Dundalk, Co. Louth, Ireland to Boston USA on the "Cuthbert" March 1851 with his siblings, Peter and Ann KIRLEY (sic). He left Boston on "the first passenger ship from Boston to Australia" (I have yet to find what the name of this ship was), arriving January 1853. After spending some time at Bendigo goldfields, he settled at Geelong in 1857, dying in Dundalk, 25 June 1888, aged 59, while visiting there, with one of his sons. He had 8 children all born at Geelong. He's buried at Bridge-a-Crin Cemetery, Dundalk, Ireland (Old Section). His wife was Bridgit (sic) McGUIRE from County Carlow. Bridget is buried at Geelong East Cemetery 21 Nov. 1828 when she was 95. I've bought Joseph KERLEYs and Bridget McGUIRE's 1864 marriage certificate: St Mary's RC Geelong. There's a whole heap of Joseph KERLEY's (and Bridget's) descendants at RCHS*1**217 Geelong Eastern Cemetery. Other descendants, also buried at Geelong Eastern Cemetery, have Unknown Locations. These are the ones, James KERLEY and Bridgit McGUIRE, from oral history, that I think I'm related to and really want to make a connection with. Oral history also says Joseph was one of 7 brothers, hence my interest in tracing down the Michael KERLEY of my earlier postings. There's quite a bit on this Joseph KERLEY: in "The Irish in Australia", "The History of Victoria and Melbourne" and elsewhere. Joseph KERLEY's father was Francis KERLEY and his mother was Catherine McARDLE. My previous postings about Michael KERLEY were to do with the Michael KERLEY buried 21 Aug 1891 at Geelong Eastern Cemetery, location unknown, aged 64 - hoping to make a link with the Geelong KERLEYs above. Regards Di R. Brisbane