Sunday, 8 September 2013

McCarleys continued

I am following up my blogs of 6 July and 3 August concerning the McIlhagga clan - McCarley marriage links. In June I wrote to my correspondent to whom I referred on 6 July, suggesting that the Robert McCarley in Charleston in 1824 (see the letter reproduced on 3 August) was the Robert McCarley who married Eliza McIlhagar in 1843 and that perhaps he first emigrated to the US as a single man then returned by 1843 in order to be married in Broughshane. My correspondent remembers seeing those names in the records of the 1st Presbyterian Church so was able to correct this assumption, for when they married on 31 March 1847 both Robert and Eliza were only 19. She also noted that there  appears to be no record of children's baptisms with Robert and Eliza as parents, at Broughshane 1st Presbyterian, which raises the possibility that they may have moved elsewhere. Equally of course they may not have been able to have children. The details in the record books are as follows:

Marriage on 31 March 1847 at Broughshane 1st Presbyterian Church;
Robert McCarley, 19 years old, shoemaker of K?nbilly, to
Eliza McIlhagar, 19 years old, spinster, Kinbilly.
Robert's father is also Robert, a farmer of Kinbilly;
Eliza's father is James, also a farmer.

Two facts of interest to our clan are first that James McIlhagar is a farmer in a townland adjacent to the townland of Ballycloghan where a number of our clan lived, and second that Robert McCarley was a shoemaker. Was James related to William McIlhagga of Ballycloghan, and was this possibility emphasised by there being a relationship to a shoemaker family - see my blog of 14 July 2012. My correspondent adds from the McCarley perspective, that surely Robert in Charleston is not married in 1824 otherwise there might have been some enquiry about his family. She thinks he may have been in Charleston at least from 1823 based on the news about the grandparents' deaths and his new nephew Robert. Perhaps he is about 20 and the second son of James. She says she is assuming James's first son is John and is involved with farming and that the trade referred to in the letter is to supplement that. There is no mention of John's children, so perhaps he is not married. In my June reply to my correspondent I next commented on Jenny, which I will take up next time.

No comments:

Post a Comment