O Canada! Investigating the French Side of the Family

Since the coronavirus pandemic exploded in March 2020, lots of regular routine life has been suspended while doctors, scientists, and governments try to reign it in. One of the side effects of being generally restricted on places to go and things to do is having to find things to occupy your free time while at home. In general, I have the temperament to handle lots of idle time, but still, everyone gets a bit stir crazy when the normal routines of life are so severely disrupted. Over the summer, when the second surge hit, I was looking for something to occupy my time, so I decided to spend a little bit of time on the Dwyer side of my family tree. Specifically, the French-Canadian branch of the Beldukes.

I don't generally spend a lot of time researching the Dwyer branch of the family. My mother's older brother has been doing an excellent job of it over the past 25-30 years, so I've mostly added his research to my tree. Every now and then, however, I spend some time attaching records to the information gathered by my uncle. That's what I decided to do in mid-June.

My great-great grandmother's name was Emma Belduke and she was born in Concord, New Hampshire to Joseph Belduke and Mary Keily in 1854. Joseph was born in St. Cerain, Quebec in 1831 to Paul Bolduc and Emily Lavigne. Looking for records on Paul and Emily is what sent me off on a six-week trek through a variety of Canadian records from Quebec.

You'll notice that my 4x great grandfather's last name is spelled differently than his son's. I'm not sure if Paul changed the name when he was living in Michigan in the late 1830s (when his younger son Napoleon was born) or if Joseph and Napoleon changed it later. The family name has actually changed twice from what we've been able to find. The original family name in France was Boulduc, and my 9x great grandfather, Louis appears to have changed it to Bolduc when he immigrated to Quebec in 1666.

Yes, you read that right, I have ancestors that can be traced back to 1666 in the province of Quebec, and after filling in the gap of names and dates of all the Bolducs and affiliated families I'm fairly convinced that I'm related to anyone with ancestors from Quebec. The reasoning behind this is fairly simple, Louis Bolduc was a French soldier sent to settle Quebec and his wife Elizabeth (Isabelle) Hubert was a Filles du Roi and sent to Quebec specifically to marry a soldier and help expand the population of New France. This meant they had a lot of children. And their children had a lot of children, and so on and so on. Louis and Elizabeth had eight children, at least four of whom lived well into adulthood. Their son Louis, Jr. (my 8x great grandfather) and his wife Louise Caron had 11 children. Similarly other Filles du Roi and their soldier husbands had large families, and these families intermarried and established the early population of Quebec.

So I spent much July tracing names in the Quebec, Genealogical Dictionary of Canadian Families on Ancestry.com which lists baptism, marriage, and burial dates of many of the founding families of Quebec. Since the families intermarried, it was quite a sort through. Once I ran out of Bolducs, it was on to the families of the women who married into the family, including more than one instance of women in the same family marrying one of the Bolduc men.

In the end, I went from having 1,100 names in my family tree to 2,301! I haven't traced many of the 1,000 plus people I've added as they are far too extended family to spend much time on right now, but I can look further into the direct line of ancestors to see if I can find more information. It's still a low priority project since my primary focus is still on the Murray side of the tree and it will be challenging as there are so many repeating names (Oh the Louis!)

One of the side benefits of this search was being able to find some names connecting back to France in the late 1500s! The challenge from this point is several fold -- whatever records that are still available 400+ years later are likely (a) hand written in archaic script, (b) in French which I neither speak nor read, and (c) in French archives and not necessarily available on line thus requiring visits to France, which, pandemic or no, is not in the plans any time soon.

Still, it's nice to have another path to go traipsing along when I get frustrated or stuck with the Murray/Coleman branch of the tree. I think this wraps up the bulk of the work I've done in 2020 on my family tree, but I still have some things I tracked down in 2019 that I need to update and of course what new discoveries I make this year!

Yep... Still Irish

So, back in late 2017, my father and I both took Ancestry DNA tests. In the three or so years since the test results came back, Ancestry has updated their database a few times which has resulted in slight changes in my DNA profile. My first results came back and I had 83% Ireland/Scotland/Wales, 13% Great Britain, and the rest trace bits of continental Europe. A year or so later, those breakdowns became 97% Ireland/Scotland and 3% England, Wales, and Northwestern Europe. Dad's results went from 93% Ireland/Scotland and 3% England/Wales/Northwestern Europe to 98% Ireland/Scotland and 2% England/Wales/Northwestern Europe. So yeah, no matter how you slice and dice the test, we're Irish.

This past summer, Ancestry did another update to their database, and this time they've been able to filter out differences between Ireland, Scotland, England, and Wales, along with other refinements. So, what does this mean this time? Well, Dad's results now show him as 100% Irish. Shocking, I know.

As for me, now my results show 95% Ireland, 2% Scotland, and 3% Germanic Europe. Yep... Still Irish. It was interesting, however, to see the 3% Germanic Europe appear, since we know there is German heritage on my mother's side of the family. The French bit, however, doesn't show up in this most recent update.

In addition to this, my mother also took an Ancestry DNA test last year (yep, she's my mom), and her results show up as 85% Ireland and 15% Scotland. No Germany. No France. The update at Ancestry occurred shortly after her original results came in, so I don't know what they originally were. Her older brother's results are similar, but one of her younger sisters has a bit of French show up in her profile. All in all though, it's pretty close.

Because there's such a significant Scottish percentage with my mother and her siblings, I'm guessing it's from our Muckle ancestry -- they're the Northern Ireland branch of the tree. I believe my uncle has even made some tenuous links to Muckles in Scotland, but I don't have that information handy.

One of the other updates made on this latest round also shows a connection to New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania settlers for both me and my father (I don't have management rights on my mother's test, so don't know if she shows anything similar.) Per the description on Ancestry "members of this community, are linked through shared ancestors. You probably have family who lived in this area for years—and maybe still do." At the moment, the only ancestors I'm aware of having lived in New Jersey are my Coleman great-grandparents and their children from about 1915-1920, so that's not the likely connection. It's possible that some of my Murray ancestors settled in the New Jersey/Pennsylvania area since my great-great grandfather John Murray's obituary asked that "New York papers, please copy," but to date I've not found any direct connection to New York.

The other bit of fun that came with the latest round of updates, is two of my cousins also submitted DNA tests and the results that came back are a bit amusing. Over the years, I actually have had 4 of my Dwyer first cousins submit samples to Ancestry, and all the results turn up as us being first cousins. The interesting bit comes in how much DNA I have in common with my cousins. In first place is one of my cousins in Alaska, the son of my mother's youngest sister. I wasn't particularly surprised by this as he looks somewhat like my brother and could easily pass himself off as such. The second place result is where things get interesting.

My mother's older brother married a woman from Guam, and both of their daughters took the Ancestry DNA test this past summer. Number two on the list of most in-common DNA -- yep, one of my half-Guamanian cousins. In fact, the one who looks entirely Pacific Islander. If you were to see the two of us sitting side by side, you wouldn't have a clue we were related, much less first cousins!

We shared a good chuckle when we realized this, and, in fact, that our blonde-haired, blue-eyed cousin is HER first place match. Just goes to show we're all much more connected than we think and how we look on the outside doesn't always match what you find on the inside.

An Update on John Murray

Continuing my promise to update the blog more regularly and a bit about the research and discoveries I made in 2019 and 2020, we go back and take a look at my great-great grandfather John Murray. As a quick reminder, John was born in Ireland in about 1840, immigrated to the US, and appears in San Francisco by 1862 where he met my great-great grandmother Bridget McDonough whom he married in 1868. John worked as an upholsterer at various laundries until his death in 1890 of cirrhosis.

I found a death notice for John in the San Francisco Call in 2017 that indicated he was from County Galway. That was a pretty good lead -- it narrowed down where I would need to search for a John Murray in Ireland, which is a daunting task as it is! Still, John Murray is a pretty common name, so it's going to be a needle in a haystack kind of search to dig up more information on him.

Once again, the addition of the San Francisco Examiner to Newspapers.com brought some more light into the search. Another new death notice, this one including two key facts. The first is that John is listed as "a native of the parish of Aughrim, County Galway, Ireland." Well, that definitely narrows down the search a bit! The second item is a request of "New York papers, please copy." That would indicate he had family in New York and possibly arrived in the US through New York City.

The New York lead was a bit thinner, so I've set that aside for the moment since I don't have any names, dates, or specific places to go with it and passenger lists of the 1850s and 1860s are pretty sparse on information beyond name and place of origin making it difficult to pin down my John Murray. Knowing the parish of origin in County Galway, however, was a huge clue, so I went off to see if I could find anything there.

The National Library of Ireland has their collection of Catholic Parish Registers available online for free, which makes them terrific to check out. They're also available through Ancestry.com which has indexed them to make them more searchable, though this wasn't the case when I first discovered John Murray's parish of origin. I browsed through the available records for Aughrim parish and found a John Murry born 9 Oct 1838 to James Murry and "Wenefride" (likely Winifred) McLaughlin, baptized 11 Oct 1838 by Patrick Walsh, CC and his godparents were listed as Pat and Mary Murry. There are no baptismal records from 13 Dec 1838 to 17 May 1840, so this may not be the correct John Murray, but it is a starting point for possible connections, especially since I didn't find any other John Murrays born between 1838-1842, which is the range of years the records I have found indicate he was born. The only other possibility in the records is a John Murray born in June 1836 to a Michael Murray and Bridget Drew with godparents named John Murray and Catherine Barrett.

Not having any records for all of 1839 and half of 1840 means that I can't be 100% certain I've found the right John Murray, but I do have some names I can search on and see if I can make any connections. I'm going to focus my search on the first John Murry/Murray as he has the closest birthdate option. Alas, the Ancestry.com search doesn't search on parents’ names in the Parish Registers, so I'll have to search through them manually to see if James and Winifred had any other children baptized in Aughrim parish. Unfortunately, there are no marriage records included for Aughrim in the registers, so I can't search there either and the Aughrim baptismal records only go back to 1828, which is just 12 years before I believe John Murray was born, so it's not likely his parents would be in the records.

The search continues.

Who Is Lizzie Quinlivan?

In writing my posts on Julia Manning, I realized I had never posted anything about the other name mentioned in my great-great grandmother Mary Manning Mullane's obituary in the San Francisco Call -- Elizabeth (Lizzie) Quinlivan of Oakland.

Having poor luck in my initial research into the mysterious "J. Manning," I turned my attention to Lizzie. Lizzie never married and worked for a number of Catholic parishes in Alameda County. Based on the 1880 Census, Lizzie is about five years younger than my great-great grandmother Mary and according to the 1920 census, she arrived in the US in 1860. The 1920 census also lists her as age 70 which would have made her 10 years old when she arrived in the US. However, when she died two years later both the California Death Index and her obituaries list her as 80 years old, which would mean she was born in 1842 and so was 18 when she arrived in the US.

So far, I'm having a problem finding any records for Lizzie in the 1900 or 1910 censuses. She is living at 1317 then 1267 16th Avenue in Oakland from 1879-1899 based on what I've been able to find in the city directories and is working as a housekeeper for a Rev. William Gleeson, who is the pastor of St. Anthony's Church. I couldn't find a listing for her in 1900, but she appears again in 1901 in the Alameda city directory living on San Antonio Avenue as "Mrs. Lizzie Quinlan" and working as a domestic. Checking that address against Google maps to see where it is today, and there, a few blocks away is St. Joseph's Basilica, so despite the name not quite being exactly correct, I am fairly confident this is Lizzie Quinlivan. 

Using both the 1899 and 1901 addresses, I went back and looked more closely at the 1900 census and was unable locate her. The "family" listed at 1267 16th Avenue in 1900 is headed by a priest named Charles O'Neil, and there is no sign of Lizzie or Rev. Gleeson. When I looked for the 1901 address in Alameda, I couldn't find the house counted, so it may have been missed. So, back to the directories to see if I can find Lizzie in 1910.

In 1902, Lizzie is back in Oakland, but disappears from the Oakland/Alameda/Berkeley city directories between 1903 and 1909. In 1910 and 1911 I find an "Ellie Quinlan" working as a domestic at 2644 Etna St. in Berkeley. It's a few blocks from the University of California campus, and the closest Catholic facility I can find on Google maps is Newman Hall-Holy Spirit Parish, so I saved that file to cross reference, and keep looking further. Nothing again between 1912-1922. I know Lizzie is living in Berkeley in 1920, since she shows up as a housekeeper in the census at 2101 California Street, which appears to be a convent of Catholic nuns led by a Sister M. Consilia Fenton, alas there isn't a 1919 or 1920 city directory available on line for Berkeley that I've found, and I can't find Sr. Consilia in the 1921 city directory nor any listing of a convent. 

Time to go back to "Ellie Quinlan" in 1910 and see if I can find her in the US Census. I do. Alas, Ellie Quinlan is 23 years old, far too young to be Lizzie who would have been about 62 by 1910. Great, that means I've got a twenty-year gap between residences for Lizzie and a forty-year gap in census records!

Still, this information is a good lead on my great-great grandmother's family. While I don't have additional verification at this point, I suspect Lizzie is a cousin on Mary's maternal side, thus giving me at least last names to search for to try to identify Mary's parents. One of the other reasons I believe this to be true is found in a record from the Ganter-Felder-Kenny mortuary records for Mary's son Timothy Joseph Mullane which lists Mary's name as Mary Quinlan. I still have much more research to do on that supposition.

More on Julia Manning

When Julia Manning died in December 1898, she left some property to her niece Elizabeth Quinlivan. The property was a “lot on S line of Atlantic street, 74:3 E of Willow, E 25 by S 100:7, being lot 9, block 446.” A little poking around in the Oakland city directories led me to find that Atlantic St. is now 5^th St. (and apparently was changed about the same time Julia died.) It took a little poking around on Google maps to find the intersection of Atlantic/5th and Willow streets as 5^th Street no longer runs all the way to Willow. The location turns out to be the main Oakland Post office and US Postal Service sorting facility in West Oakland, right next to the Nimitz Freeway (US Hwy. 880) So much for finding Julia’s house 123 years later!

But with that info, I also looked deeper into the Oakland city directories. I found a Mrs. Julia Manning living at 1679 Atlantic in the 1889 directory and a Miss Julia Manning at the same address in 1878, which made things a little more confusing. Further digging shows Julia at the address on Atlantic Street from 1877 until 1892, but that’s the last time I find her in the Oakland directories. Since I found a Julia Manning in the 1892 San Francisco directory, I continue looking there. In 1892, she is listed as a music teacher living at “SW corner 7th and Railroad Ave.” There’s no Julia Manning in the 1893 San Francisco city directory, but in 1894 I find a Julia Manning living at 328 ½ 7^th. This time she’s listed as a widow. The 1892 and 1894 Julia Mannings are likely the same person, but is she the same Julia Manning I found in Oakland? Nothing in the 1895 or 1896 directories, but Julia shows up again as a widow on 7^th St. in 1897 and 1898. I check 1899 to 1901 to make sure I’m tracking properly and lo and behold, while there was no Julia Manning listed in 1899 or 1900, there is widowed Julia Manning in the 1901 directory, now living on Ivy Avenue. Ok then, the San Francisco Julia Manning is probably a different person.

But, I have a number of Oakland addresses that match up with the property left to Lizzie Quinlivan, so I know Julia is in Oakland as early as 1877, which means she should show up in the 1880 US Census. Off to see what turns up there. She doesn’t show up in a general search so, once again, it means paging through the census records page by page. No luck. I find a family living at 1677 Atlantic, but that’s as close I can get. It appears 1679 Atlantic got skipped. Ok, so now what?

The directory information I found was all on Ancestry.com, so time to head over to the Internet Archive which has some city directories for Oakland among the many many documents they have scanned. Can I find Julia before 1877? Maybe even in 1870 which would give me another census option? Alas, no luck on either front. There aren't many Oakland city directories available at the Internet Archive that are earlier than 1877, so even if Julia was living in Oakland earlier than 1877, I can't find evidence. A search of the 1870 census is equally futile -- no Julia Manning in Oakland or any other part of California though there are several in other parts of the country. Most are married, and it appears “my” Julia never married (despite the “Mrs.” designation in the 1889 directory – all others listed her as “Miss” and there is no reference of a husband in her obituary which I would expect to see if she had been married.)

Looks like there’s a bit more digging to do for Julia, which is par for the course, especially for the Manning/Mullane line of the family.

The First Attempt to Find J Manning

While preparing posts on my search for Julia Manning, I found an early draft tracking my first attempts to find "J. Manning." The post is incomplete, but shows where my thinking was circa 2018 when I worked up the draft. Notice I eliminated Julia pretty quickly. Stay tuned to find out what I've learned since.

My great-great grandmother Mary Manning Mullane died in February 1892 and her death notice mentions she is the "niece of J. Manning." Mary was born around 1845 making her about 46 when she died, so that would mean J. Manning was likely in his or her sixties or early seventies in 1892. It is possible he or she was older or younger than that, but it's a safe age range to start searching. That would mean J. Manning would have been born sometime in the 1820s or 1830s, though the range from 1810-1840 isn't totally out of the question. My great-great grandmother was born in Ireland, so again it is likely that J. Manning was also born in Ireland. Since the death notice appears in the San Francisco Call, and also references a cousin living in Oakland, I believe J. Manning also lived in San Francisco in 1892.

Great, that's a start, right? I need to find someone with a first name that starts with J and was born between about 1820-1835 in Ireland. Now the trick is to identify exactly who this J. Manning is. I was able to find my great-great grandmother "B. Murray" easily enough, so it's off to the San Francisco city directories to see what I'm up against. I first checked the 1892 city directory where I found the following:

• J.J. Manning living at 1115 Castro Street.
• Julia Manning, music teacher, living at 7th and Railroad Avenues
• 9 different James Mannings
• 3 different Jeremiah Mannings, though one is a Jr. and at the same residence as one of the others, so probably someone I can eliminate.
• 5 different John Mannings
•  2 different Joseph Mannings

So that is a total of 20 possibilities (21 if Jeremiah, Jr. is included.) I save the page from the 1892 directory and then go take a look at the 1891 directory. From there I found the following:

• 12 different James Mannings
• 6 different John Mannings
• 1 Joseph Manning living at 612 Taylor Street.

That's still 19 possibilities that I need to compare to the 1892 directory, but I may be able to eliminate the Jeremiahs and Julia Manning. I decided to step back one more year to 1890 and see what I would find there:

• 8 different James Mannings
• 1 Jeremiah Manning living at 1120 Elm Avenue.
• 7 different John Mannings
• 1 Joseph Manning living at 1212 Howard Street.

Down to 17 possibilities, but we've got a Jeremiah back in the picture. I decided to stop there and cross-reference the three years of names and addresses to see which people appeared most consistently at the same address with the same occupation. That's a lot of people to track down and with out an 1890 census, I have to look for voter registrations to see if I can find any of them close to 1892. I eliminate Julia right off the bat as she only appears once in the three years of directories I looked at and since she is a woman I would not be able to find her in the 1890s voter records.