Trying to put the pieces together to make some sense of the Mullane branch of the family tree has been a bit frustrating. Despite sending off for my great grandmother Mary Mullane Murray's death certificate months ago, I've not yet received any notification as to whether or not it's been found. All I know is what I've been able to find online in the CA Death Index (her birth and death dates and that her mother's maiden name is Manning) and her death notice in the San Francisco Chronicle (that she had two brothers named Phillip and Patrick.) Not knowing who her parents were makes it harder to determine if the Mary Mullane I found in 1900 married to Edward Hayes is the right person. That Mary Mullane has at least five brothers and possibly as many as eight based on the names I've found living at the same addresses. Right now, most of the information I've found makes me suspect I have found the right person, but there are still several grey areas that make it difficult to be 100% certain.
I know that Mary Mullane Murray was born in 1871. That means she should show up in the 1880 census, but when I searched for her name, nothing came up. Ditto when I searched on any of the brothers who were born before 1880. Not having her parents' names meant a bit of a road block for searching. I knew the Mullanes should be showing up in San Francisco in 1880, but I couldn't figure out why they weren't. Since I'd already had this experience with the Murrays not showing up due to undigitized pages of the census, I turned to the city directories and looked up all the Mullanes that were listed in 1880. I only found three: Cornelius Mullane, teamster, living on 25th between Douglass and Diamond; Michael Mullane, groceries & liquors, living at 446 Natoma; and Timothy Mullane, porter Lawrence Ryan, living at 25 Fillmore.
That wouldn't be too hard to search. At least, that was the thought. None of the three turned up in a general search of the 1880 census. Great, that meant browsing page by page again! At least I had the reference to narrow down the enumeration districts. Cornelius should show up in Enumeration District 183, and I find Con Mullane (age 30) working as a milkman. He is married to a woman named Maggie and has a one year old daughter Eliza. There are no other children, so that should eliminate him from my list as Mary's father. Michael should show up in Enumeration District 133 or 134, and I find 446 Natoma in Enumeration District 133, but no Michael Mullane. Drat! Last try is Timothy who should show up in Enumeration District 223. I scroll through the pages looking for 25 Fillmore and find a record for T.J. McLay (age 32) working in a furniture store living at that address. He's married (Mary, age 35) and has seven children: John (10), Mary (9), Joseph (7), Thomas (6), Phillip (5), P.H. (4), and E.W. (11 mos.) Well, that matches up with the Mullanes I found around 1900, but the last name is completely different.
I head back to the city directories and go forward and backward on Timothy Mullane at 25 Fillmore, and in the 1881 city directory Timothy J. Mullane is listed as "furniture, r.25 Fillmore." I find him at 25 Fillmore as early as 1872 and continuously thereafter until 1888. His listed occupation varies over the years, but the address consistency leads me to believe that the census enumerator misheard the last name for Timothy Mullane in 1880. By the 1891 directory, Mary Mullane, widow, shows up at 45 Belcher which is the same address I found Miss Mary J. Mullane in 1896 living with what appears to be six brothers.
So, Timothy Mullane and his wife Mary are the parents of the Mullanes I found in the San Francisco City directories of the late 1890s/early 1900s. Phillip and Patrick (P.H.) show up with Mary again. Mary is 9 years old, which means she was born in 1871 which again matches up with the information I have for my great grandmother. Edward (E.W.) also shows up again, and what I've found out about him so far leads me to believe he was one of my Mary's brothers. Still, none of this is confirmation.
While I strongly suspect I've found the right family, I'll need to search further on Michael Mullane in order to eliminate him as a possible father to my Mary Mullane. (And it is entirely possible that he is an uncle, so more information will be useful!) If I can ever get her death certificate to turn up that might save me considerable time.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
More Mystifying Mary Mullane
Trying to find out about my great grandmother Mary Mullane has been quite a puzzle. To date, the only Mary Josephine Mullane I have found in San Francisco was married to a Dennis Edward Hayes in both the 1900 and 1910 censuses. My grandfather Edward Murray was born in 1914, which leaves a four-year gap between records and should have Mary Mullane and Marshall Murray married by 1913.
I sent off for her death record months ago, but haven’t received any response to the inquiry and may need to request it again as I’m hoping that will help me identify her parents and thus help clear up some of my confusion. I also sent off for the birth record for my grandfather, which provided some interesting, but again confusing, information.
For starters, my grandfather’s name is listed as John Marshall Edward Murray. Where on earth did “John” come from?! My best guess is that it was to honor my great great grandfather John Murray. From what I can tell, he never used John at any point in his life after that. And that’s not even the confusing part!
Towards the bottom of the birth certificate is a notation “Number of children born to this mother, including present birth.” That number is listed as two. Next to it is a notation “Number of children of this mother now living.” That number is listed as one. Well, ok, what’s that all about? There was a family story that my grandfather had an older sister who died as a child and that would match up with the birth certificate information. The question becomes, then, when was this sister born?
According to the 1900 and 1910 census records Mary Mullane Hayes had no children. If this Mary Mullane is the same Mary Mullane that married my great grandfather, then between April 1910 (when the census was taken) and May 1914 (when my grandfather was born) she would have had to have lost a husband, remarried, and had a daughter who subsequently died. That’s an awful lot in a fairly short time. It’s not impossible of course – a fairly reasonable scenario would be something like this:
May 1910 – unknown daughter born to Mary & Edward Hayes
1910 – unknown daughter dies in infancy
1911 – Edward Hayes dies/abandons/divorces Mary
1912 – Mary meets Marshall Murray
1913 – Mary and Marshall are married
May 1914 – Edward Murray is born
I have no evidence whatsoever to support that timeline, but it’s one that makes sense. Another scenario is that Edward Hayes dies before the unknown daughter and Mary marries Marshall then the daughter dies – a widow with a young child might be likely to marry sooner rather than later especially at that point in history.
Unfortunately, that’s all speculation. I’ve yet to find any record of Mary and Marshall’s marriage. I have no idea what happened to Edward Hayes. And I haven’t the faintest idea if the sister is a full sister or half-sister or when she was born or when she died. Heck, I don’t even know for certain if the other child was a girl!
I have been tracking down some other leads on the Mullanes, but I will save them for another post. I will say, this particular branch of the family tree is quite confounding!
I sent off for her death record months ago, but haven’t received any response to the inquiry and may need to request it again as I’m hoping that will help me identify her parents and thus help clear up some of my confusion. I also sent off for the birth record for my grandfather, which provided some interesting, but again confusing, information.
For starters, my grandfather’s name is listed as John Marshall Edward Murray. Where on earth did “John” come from?! My best guess is that it was to honor my great great grandfather John Murray. From what I can tell, he never used John at any point in his life after that. And that’s not even the confusing part!
Towards the bottom of the birth certificate is a notation “Number of children born to this mother, including present birth.” That number is listed as two. Next to it is a notation “Number of children of this mother now living.” That number is listed as one. Well, ok, what’s that all about? There was a family story that my grandfather had an older sister who died as a child and that would match up with the birth certificate information. The question becomes, then, when was this sister born?
According to the 1900 and 1910 census records Mary Mullane Hayes had no children. If this Mary Mullane is the same Mary Mullane that married my great grandfather, then between April 1910 (when the census was taken) and May 1914 (when my grandfather was born) she would have had to have lost a husband, remarried, and had a daughter who subsequently died. That’s an awful lot in a fairly short time. It’s not impossible of course – a fairly reasonable scenario would be something like this:
May 1910 – unknown daughter born to Mary & Edward Hayes
1910 – unknown daughter dies in infancy
1911 – Edward Hayes dies/abandons/divorces Mary
1912 – Mary meets Marshall Murray
1913 – Mary and Marshall are married
May 1914 – Edward Murray is born
I have no evidence whatsoever to support that timeline, but it’s one that makes sense. Another scenario is that Edward Hayes dies before the unknown daughter and Mary marries Marshall then the daughter dies – a widow with a young child might be likely to marry sooner rather than later especially at that point in history.
Unfortunately, that’s all speculation. I’ve yet to find any record of Mary and Marshall’s marriage. I have no idea what happened to Edward Hayes. And I haven’t the faintest idea if the sister is a full sister or half-sister or when she was born or when she died. Heck, I don’t even know for certain if the other child was a girl!
I have been tracking down some other leads on the Mullanes, but I will save them for another post. I will say, this particular branch of the family tree is quite confounding!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)