Hello GV "experts": I have a question re. interpreting a transcribed entry in the Griffiths Valuation. In Upperchurch Parish, Townland of Coumnageeha (Ord. S.pg.39) , are entries for two properties, owned and leased by John Armstrong, Esq. . The first parcel lists two names as co-tenants: Bridget Ryan and John Ryan. In the transcription, Bridget is listed above John, but there is the letter "a" in the 1st column next to John. Also, the 86-acre property appears to have just one house on it. In fact, the 2nd parcel , a small 5acre plot, is leased by a Laurence Ryan; but it does not have a building. I realize the lack of a house on the 2nd parcel doesn't necessarily mean that the occupier resides with the tenants of the 1st. I read in one explanation that the listing of one name before another in the "Occupiers" column doesn't imply anything, but as I have so little available in the way of other records, I'm trying to figure out the relationship of these 3 individuals....Bridget and John Ryan on Parcel 1; and Laurence occupying smaller Parcel 2. This John Ryan had been married in 1843 (to Mary Ryan), so would have been possibly in his 30's at the time of the GV. I suspect that Bridget might be the mother (or mother-in-law) of John Ryan; and Laurence a brother or brother-in-law. I suspect Bridget might be John's mother or mother-in-law (John's wife's name was also Ryan); because John Ryan's eldest daughter was also named Bridget; but only about age 7 when the GV survey was done. Does this seem reasonable...i.e. re. co-tenant Bridget Ryan being the mother or mother-in-law and residing in same house as her son, his wife and children? If so, it would seem to imply that she was widowed by then. Another possibility is that the listed John Ryan is not my G-G Grandfather, but his father... and Bridget his wife... but this seems to me less likely; though I wonder if it would be more common for a husband and wife to be listed as "occupiers" in the GV than a woman and her son / son-in-law. And as to Laurence; I have no other information though I wonder at John Ryan and Mary Ryan's having named their first son (born 2 months before their marriage) "Launcelot". Those names seem do have very different cultural origins so I am not assuming any association between them. Any thoughts about this are appreciated. ~Roger H.