Andrew Doyle Dublin (later convict to Australia)

A Bridget Nugent was baptised 4 Dec 1752 in St Catherine RC, Meath Street, Dublin

Her parets are Owen Nugent and Margaret Boyle, both b abt 1720.

They also had John, b 15 Jun 1755, who m Mary Plunkett b 31 Oct 1752, also in St Catherine.

Mary the d of Thomas Plunkett b 30 Apr 1721 in the other St Catherine, Church of Ireland

Owen Nugent [above] was the son of John Nugent and Margaret Plunkett, she was b abt 1698

Best

Michael Dixon

Hello Michael

Many thanks for your detective work. It is a great help. You have more patience and better eyes than I have. Thank you.

Now to confirm their marrieage date.

Thanks for you information.

Regards Ken Doyle 

Hi Ken

Bridget Nugent 1752 is my 6th G Aunt.

Her grandfather John Nugent [7th ggf] was of Coolamber [or Cloonshannagh] Manor, Co Longford, which is close by Castle Nugent.

This Manor is NOT the same as the current house, it was built .c.1800.

John Nugent m Lady Margaret Plunkett, of Killeen Castle.

Her father Sir Peter Plunkett, IV Earl Fingall, 1678 - 24 Jan 1717

Her mother  Lady Frances Hales, abt 1672 - 6 Aug 1749

Not your usual run-of-the-mill Criminal's family!!

You might have to revisit why your relatives arrived in Australia.

Michael

Hi Michael what a stunning reply and having traced the Nugent family line that far back. Thank you for your research. Congratulations. It is always revelatory in being able to trace the family in that way.   I find a great relief and excitement when after trawling through seemingly endless list of parish or church names finally finding the ones you want. Usually of course with large families there is always another person that pops up unexpectedly and yet another to research more fully at a later stage.

So if you are a Norris and me a Doyle , then we are over the space of 300 years or so related in some way. I haven’t yet got the hang of the nomenclature for family connections but irrespective of that, it is real, and in that way very important.  One reason is there is a connection and it was a long time ago. Another reason is that in this rather fatuous world of immediacy, short attention spans and alternative versions of the truth, at least there is the indelible sturdiness of our own history, and our ancestors. I will get off the soapbox now!

What a lineage. Of course we don’t get to choose the luck of the draw of that. Having a confirmed  connection is great. Of course far easier when there is a name or title involved. You made mention of reassessing the Doyle line. Despite impressive lineage, Andrew Doyle was a crook according to the law.

After Bridget Nugent and Bartholemew Doyle wed (and I still trying to find out exactly where and when that was) it is thought they lived at 80 Church Street Dublin. Bartholemew as a grocer and liquor merchant. They had five sons and 2 daughter. The children were all baptised at St Catherines ( RC). Meath Street. The family seemed well off.  My family records state that prior to their Dublin days the family had at some stage a farm in Wicklow, called ‘Ulinbawn’. 

The Australian connection started when James (b1765) and Andrew (b1774) were in their adult life. In Dublin, James was an army clothier, and Andrew was an engraver. Andrew married Sophia Isabella Norris (nee Joamier) around 1792. Sophia’s mother Marie (christened 13/9/1719) was the daughter of Huguenot refugees. Thus being protestant, Sophia Isabella encouraged Andrew to convert. He did. Andrew and Sophia had 3 children in Ireland (and more in Australia).  It is thought in the family journals that Sophia was a cousin of Lord Castlereagh, but I haven’t confirmed that. (I doubt it at this stage). James married Margaret St George Dowling. Not much known of her yet. On face value with a name such as that she did not sound like an unknown.

Both Andrew and James were convicted of forgery. True they had run ins with the law over their part in uprisings in 1798 and 1801.  Andrew in 1801 was convicted with possessing  forged Bank of Ireland bank notes. (Being an engraver gives weight to this unless they were framed for previous activity) Both were detained in Newgate prison and transported as convicts aboard the Rolla, leaving Cork on 4/11/1802. (arriving Sydney 10/5/1803). Michael, in Australia it used to be a source of embarrassment to admit to convict ancestry but today it’s almost a badge of honour.  Both brothers were allowed to bring their family as free settlers. Andrew did this, but James’s wife Margaret, (having sold the house) and child Mary, missed the ship by one day. Their daughter Mary re united with her dad James in Windsor (just to the north west of Sydney where he owned a hotel) in 1821, travelling under the  guardianship of her uncle James Canton second husband of Bridget Doyle (Bartholemew and Bridget Nugent’s last child(b1778) . On the banks of the Hawkesbury river,Andrew built a house calling it Ulitedinburra Lodge, ‘named after a Dublin residence of the pioneer Doyles ’(see Hawkesbury Doyles, in Windsor and  Richmond Gazette 5/12/1930, see Trove). Andrew died 1841. The family owned cattle stations, and were pioneers in central New South Wales and into Queensland. Of course there are lots of notables for other activities as well, and famous families they married into. All documented.

Michael I hope the family connection is not too complicated. It gets more so in the 1800’s with most of the Doyle families having many, many offspring. The family tree, like yours, is very large.

Thank you for your Nugent information. I was unaware of it. It is very valuable, so thanks for sharing.  Keep in touch.

Ken Doyle

Hi Ken

In which case we would be distantly related through Bridget Nugent's family.

Coincidentally a present day Andrew Doyle and I are presently engaged in a complex local research project.

However he is NOT an engraver, and therefore will NOT be travelling under compulsion any time soon to Australia!!

Yes my family tree is rather large, 60k people within, I cannot claim total credit. 

Begun by my ggf it is now the cumulative effort of 4 generations, over 120 years, commenced 1896/98.

And not everyone within is strictly ours!

There are several 'outlanders'

GGF originally established a rather intelligent  Rule that all research commenced remained in situ.

Even when it did not develop as expected!

Primarily as a warning that 'avenue' was already visited.

Also in expectation as new record resources were consulted/became available several 'suspected twiglets' would indeed 'join' that main Tree trunk!

Which many since have done.

You will find weddings are difficult to track down.

Many parish priests failed to record, as the time period in question was 'hot', and a parish register could quite easily be seized by the Authorities.

Of course churches were as poor as proverbial church mice, and expenditure upon registers suffered, especially in provincial parishes.

Likewise Penal Laws forced Catholics with property to baptise and marry within the Established Church.

In order to safeguard that property, else that marriage was not recognised and their children 'bastardised' under the laws of inheritance.

You ask about Huguenot places of worship

Several were provided by the Established Church of Ireland in Dublin, primarily in the Coombe/ Liberties area.

Read

https://www.ireland.anglican.org/news/7722/the-irish-huguenot-archive

Some entries will appear in the Irish Government site

irishgenealogy.ie

Others will be found within the publications of the Huguenot Society, Registers of the French Non-Conformist Churches Dublin 1701 - 1831 published 1901 and other publications.

Insofar as the Huguenot congregations were eventually subsumed into the main body of the Church of Ireland you should look at the Church Representative Body Library site at

http://www.ireland.anglican.org/about/rcb-library

There is a digitization project in progress.

However these parish register collections are not a  present part of the better known National Library Ireland collection.

Your Distant Cousin

Michael

and a hinderance, often sending me on a time consuming lead to nowhere. Thank you for the information on the Irish government site and also on the Huguenot and other parish records.

Fortunately the Huguenots certainly had good record keeping. The Church of Ireland seems to have a regard for that part of their history too. I have been in contact with Susan Hood the librarian in charge of the church records. The 1901 Huguenot records digitised the baptism and marriages in the main French churches in Dublin at the time.  Page 58 of that record has the baptism of Marie Jouamier who married John Norris. Their daughter Sophia Isabella married Andrew Doyle. My French is merde as they say, and the records of the French Church Peter Street where Marie was baptised is of course in French.

Another interesting part of family history research, and you certainly have evidence of this is the numbers of family members who marry into other connected families. Were Lady Margaret Plunkett who married John Nugent related to the Mary Plunkett who married Owen’s son also called John Nugent??

I know in the case of Andrew and James marriages and marriages of their children, especially in remote or rural areas where social connections were more limited,  there were often multiple connections between sibling of two or three families that make a regular appearance in the family tree. Some multiple connecting families to the Doyls are Fitz, McDougall, Fitzgerald Smith and other families. They are often seen multiple times, often in the same generation. There were 6 marriages for example between members of the  Doyle and McDougall families.  

On area that I am researching with little success are the children of Bartholemew Doyle and Bridget Nugent who aren’t notorious. The history is recorded for those who transgressed. Some of their seven children remained in Dublin and there is scant information about them. Anthony (b.26/3/1767), Thomas (b.7/6/172) and John (b.7/7/1777)  are relatively unknown. Bridget (b.29/6/1778) did migrate to Sydney with her daughter, when she was 50, and lived with James. Bartholomew and Bridget Nugent’s other daughter  Mary (b.13/11/1770)   is recorded  in Australian Royalty, which lists Australian pioneer families of note, as  “death yes”  

The other area worthy of investigation is Bartholomew’s parents. Some research on a commercial site suggests they were Edward and Ann Doyle. I am trying to get confirmation of this and make a connection a bit further back if possible as you have so kindly provided with the Nugent family. I’ll get back to it.

Regards

Ken Doyle    

Hi Ken

There are several of my Tree’s online.

Those on Ancestry are not updated and/or corrected.

The most recent are on findmypast,

DIXON.261009.Rev1

I add this because I easily cannot add a Pedigree view of the ancestors of our 6th ggp’s, in my case John Nugent 15 Jun 1755 and in your case his sister Bridget 04 Dec 1752.

Their parents, Owen Nugent and Margaret Boyle’s parents were, respectively, John Nugent/  [Lady] Margaret Plunkett

And

William Boyle/  Margaret [Unknown]

The first and obvious deduction is that John Nugent was a Cadet Branch, related in some way, as yet undiscovered by me, to the Nugent’s of Castle Nugent.

You might be amused by an analysis of Castle Rackrent by Maria Edgeworth, based upon later occupants of this, the real Castle Nugent!

https://www.jstor.org/stable/30070598?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

that you can read online free

The natural consequence of your birth order defined your natural position in Society, unless you managed to marry well!

John certainly married well, into the Plunkett’s of Killeen Castle.

But there were two forces acting in Society then, Religion and Social Contacts, and the second might protect you from the first, however the first possessed control of the Money Tree, the rewarding of Loyalism by a provision of Government posts and sinecures!!

As far as the Establishment was concerned, a dutiful attendance at the Established Church was a reflection of your attachment to the Crown, as the Crown headed the Church, you could be ‘trusted.’

‘Church’ was paradoxically Politics.

And so Ken, if you were a younger child, a Plunkett and a Catholic, your position in Society was assured, though your income was not!

Which is a long-winded way of explaining the marriage to Margaret Boyle, another long established family but obviously another Cadet Branch, supported then by Trade rather than old money.

Margaret Boyle’s father William lived in Moore Street, nowadays a colourful street Market, then the residences of the Catholic Merchant Class. William’s wife was Margaret [Unknown], and they had at least two children

Margaret Boyle abt 1720, prob baptised at home

And

Joseph 22 Sep 1728, St Michan RC, North Anne Street, Dublin

Although père William was most certainly baptised in 1695 in St Catherine COI, Thomas Street, Dublin, as was his father Charles.

8th ggf Charles Boyle also had at least one other son Francis 22 Aug 1697.

And now we enter the part of the Tree, that of Margaret Plunket, that simply flourishes backward in time, with too many ancestors for me to list here, one of the advantages of having Landed ancestors, and of course disadvantages of their oddities caused by too many close cousinly marriages to protect that Land!

Now to your specifically Huguenot ancestors.

Several years ago I sat on the National Archives Advisory Council with Dr Raymond Refaussé, an eminent genealogist and former Librarian & Archivist at Church of Ireland. As his surname indicates he has a particular interest in Huguenot records

https://dublin.anglican.org/news/2016/10/Former-Church-of-Ireland-Libra…

So that Library has taken the needs of that community into account.

Best

Michael

Postscript

Hi Ken

Your Surname 'Doyle' eminated from 'Dubh', meaning Dark, and 'Ghall' meaning foreigner.

The residence of your Family in Ireland greatly predates all those Landed and Unlanded folks with their nit-picking with variations of religions.

'Ghall' is 'foreigner', as in those times the only foreigners known to the native Celts were the Gauls.

While 'Dubh' is the point of difference between these arrivals, the fair-haired Danes and the later and darker Norwegians, both latterly described as 'Vikings'.

So Ken you are Norwegian Viking, Irish and Australian, in that order!!

M

Ooops

Forgot to answer your question regarding the several Nugent marriages.

John Nugent m Mary Plunkett, and she was b 31 Oct 1752, St Catherine RC., Meath Street, Dublin, the d of Thomas Plunkett & Elizabeth [Unknown].

This Thomas was b 30 Apr 1721, but in the other St Catherine, the Church of Ireland [COI], suggestive of wealth and therefore an inheritance that needed rubber-stamp protection!

Thomas 1721 was in turn Thomas 1698, who m Mary Anne [Unknown] and d 05 Jan 1742 in the Coombe, bur in St Luke COI there, which is suggestive that he was a Merchant involved in the Garment trade.

His father Thomas Plunkett returns us to yet another Branch of the Plunkett family, as he was b in Louth Hall, in Tallanstown, Co Louth, Ireland, although he died in Dublin in 1733. This elder Thomas m Jane [Unknown] abt 1677 - 04 Dec 1710, bur in St Mary COI Churchyard, Mary Street, Dublin.

This elder Thomas was the s of Matthew Plunkett [abt 1630 – Sep 1689] & Jane FitzGerald [1642 - 10 Apr 1686 bur St Catherine COI Churchyard, Thomas Street, Dublin.

Matthew Plunkett was VII Lord Louth, Sir Matthew in fact, though we being descendants may address him as 9th Great Grandfather Matt!

And your final and ‘awkward’ question, were they related?

Jointly and severally in fact.

Your eligible partner in those days amounted to a ‘suitable match’.

Of course and again, ‘religion’ played a limiting part in your limited choice.

For ‘ordinary’ folk, a day’s walk was a circle of eligibility.

While for ‘carriage’ folk a day’s ride expanded that circle.

Although an RC carriage owner could have that horse ‘requisitioned under the Penal Laws upon a payment of £5!

Precisely how far a £5 horse [it was madness to possess a more valuable steed] might take you is a matter of some conjecture!!

And Ken, given your predecessors were Carriage Folk, excepting that careless forger, you could face ejection from that Australian Royalty in consequence?

Best Again

Michael

A New Marriage?, A New Coat, and Cashing Out!

Hi Ken

I since discovered the following records: -

Marriage 9 May 1780

Bartholomew Doyle m Mary Magdalene Archbold alias Goysmith [sic] [a Widow of ‘Goldsmith?]

Wit: Martha Lacy & Patrick Doyle

National Library of Ireland:

https://registers.nli.ie//registers/vtls000633526#page/1/mode/1up

St. Catherine's, Dublin City | Microfilm 07141 / 04

Bartholomew Doyle, a Grocer, of Hammond Lane, Convert Roll, 28 Nov 1781, abjured before the Common Pleas.

Ireland, Catholic Qualification & Convert Rolls 1701-1845

https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=IRE%2FCATHQUALCONV%2F007604092_00040&parentid=IRE%2FCATH%2FQUAL%2FCONV%2F11232

Treble Almanack & Dublin Directory 1783

76 Church Street

Lease 436-179-281157

Dated 20 May 1791. Whereby James Fowler of Dublin, a coach owner, demises to Hugh O’Toole of Dublin, Grocer, said house situated on north side of King Street, near Stephens Green, Dublin [there follows boundaries] to hold from 25 March 1790 for 26 years at £22-15-0 Rent. Witnesses to said lease Bartholomew Doyle of Dublin, Grocer and Robert Martin of Dublin Apothecary. Wit to this memorial […..] Dunn[e] of Dublin, Limeburner, and said Robert Martin.

Registered: 21 May 1791 by Hugh O’Toole

Crossle's genealogical abstracts collection/ (Parcel 1A-32-19 v. E - F cont.) Fowler papers and notebook.

Index to The Prerogative Wills of Ireland, 1536-1810, And Supplement (1914)

Bartholomew Doyle, a Grocer & Merchant, [Death] 1796

Best

M

30 July

Hello Michael

Many thanks for your  last reply which I have only just found. I had taken a break from online work for a few weeks. What a professional insight into a social context of genealogy , especially your observations of carriage folk in those years and what was an acceptable circle of eligibility. It was a fascinating reply of great importance,  given the (by comparison) almost laissez faire behaviour in a new colony and what constituted social connection and hierarchy in a new place. Often they were connections that could not have been imagined in the more rigid home country.

It seems in the old country if I can call it that, this was clearly more than geography but a carefully nuanced relationship between social connections, religion and money, and also possibly as now the hard connection of the brutality of politics in the social elevator.

Seemingly here, in the colonies under the pressures of survival, the old social fabric was not just broken, but those with whom one would not normally mix for fear of social exclusion was the least of their worries. Strange bedfellows indeed.  

Even today probably because of our history  most Australians are self effacing, don’t suffer fools, bring down tall poppies and ‘take the piss’ out of those who seem to be up themselves. Re reading the above it seems to have clearly been written by someone of convict stock!!  Little wonder that Ned Kelly, our most remembered  national hero (despite being a murdering bushranger), is more revered and certainly better known than Redmond Barry the judge who sentenced our Ned to death. I believe Barry (ex Trinty College, Dublin) is in a current exhibition at the Irish Emigration Museum in Dublin possibly feted as an import colonial judge.  

Speaking of which, Andrew Doyle (the convict) so inveigled himself with the Captain of the prison ship Rolla when, instead of  convicts en route to  serving their life sentence  being held in chains and sharing  miserable conditions below deck, Andrew was allowed to be with Sophia Isabella (nee Norris) and the children for the 6month journey in her cabin.

In fact Andrew’s 9 page letter sent back to the Dublin Society in 1804 mentions that en route to the colony with the one month stopover in Rio De Janiero he was allowed to freely mix with the most senior of Rio society including at a   State banquet. He said at the eve of their departure, “suffice it to say we parted with the Spanish President of Seville, Don Pedro Preusy (?) with tears on both sides and more like a near relative than an acquaintance of one month.”

He seemed to have had more front than Mark Foys as we would say. An Australianism for an extroverted self important person who  gets away with things. In Ireland, substitute Arnotts or Penneys or Harrods  for the (now extinct) retailer Mark Foys. Such was Andrew that he was a regular attender in Sydney at Government House, as his reputation as an engraver and botanical painter was highly sought. Andrew studied drawing under William Waldon the master of the (now) Royal Dublin Society’s School of Ornamental drawing. Governor King the third Governor, commissioned Andrew to paint the flora of the colony for Sir Joseph Banks.  The fourth Governor of the colony, William Bligh, (of Bounty fame) had little need for such fineries and Andrew continued farming. Not surprisingly Blight tried to implement change and 18 months into his 5 year term faced another mutiny, one of the four in his life,  and the colonists and the NSW corps cornered him in Government 

House, found him hiding behind his bed, locked him up and sent him back to England. That though is a longer story.

Michael your links and references to Dublin records of the era are most important. Thank you. They are valuable for my research as well. It is interesting also that you found a number of Bartholomew Doyles in Dublin at the time. Bridget Nugent is definitely the wife of Bartholomew Doyle in our tree, and makes an appearance in Andrews Baptism at St Catherines Meath Street, ,29 November 1774., and all the other 6 children as well.

 I smiled when you mentioned that given Andrew’s convict status that Australian Royalty might be a misnomer. Indeed what you now know of Australia’s relationship to convict history  and the Crown as being THE source of misery for the colonists, Australian Royalty is more than apt. The honour of convict ancestry here is a badge, being a ‘First Fleeter’ (1788) even more so.

Thank you for the important information Michael. Your insight is much more than that of a a genealogist researching family history. I am grateful for it.

Regards

Ken Doyle