Elizabeth (Murphy) Mason: 52 Ancestors #62

The final player in my "tentative third great aunt/uncle" Murphy lineup is at least a bit more straightforward than the others: only one marriage that I know of; findable in both PEI and Newburyport; and no inexplicably vanishing children. Still, she's not without her mysteries.

First is the question of her age. Like her presumed sisters, Mary and Catherine, no baptismal record has been found for Elizabeth Murphy. I'd be inclined to think she was born around 1841-42, based on her age in the 1881 census and her death certificate, were it not for the difficulty fitting her in among Patrick (Dec 1838 – baptismal record), Catherine (tentatively May 1840), and James (May 1842 – baptismal record). Moreover, there's an inviting empty slot in 1934 between Mary (tentatively 1832) and Daniel (1836 – baptismal record), but then that's even earlier than her 1900 census reported birth date of June 1836. Still, considering that Mary's and Catherine's birth dates are questionable as well, I suppose it's futile to try to fit them all together rationally. (For that matter, there could even be a set of twins among the three women.)

The first time Elizabeth actually appears in a record is 11 Nov 1869, when she marries Demas [Nicodemus] Mason, by license, at Holy Trinity Anglican Church in Georgetown, P.E.I. They are noted as bachelor (B) and spinster (S) respectively, presumably indicating a first marriage for each.¹

Marriage of Demas Mason and Elizabeth Murphy, 1869

The only baptismal record found for children of the couple is one for a daughter, Mary Jane, born 6 Jun 1873 in Charlottetown and baptized on 22 Jun at St. Dunstan's Basilica (Catholic Church).² Yet when the 1881 census rolls around, we find Demas and Elizabeth in Charlottetown with not only 8-year-old Mary Jane, but also a 19-year-old son, John!³

Baptism of Mary Jane Mason, 1873, St. Dunstan's Basilica

1881 Canada census, Prince Edward Island, Queens County, Charlottetown, Demas Mason household

Two things immediately jump out at you here: First, John's implied birth year of 1863 is a full six years before the couple's marriage. (Although his age at first appears to be 14, examination of other 4s and 9s on the sheet shows that the numeral is actually an unclosed 9; all 4s are decidedly angular, as in Elizabeth's age of 40.) Second, if Demas's age of 32 is correct, John can't possibly be his son. Possibly he's adopted, or else he is Elizabeth's from an earlier relationship. Demas was born in Nova Scotia and John in P.E.I., so it's unlikely he's a younger brother. (There is also a 3-month-old boy in the household, George Thomas Burns, with no clue as to his origin. He's not seen again.⁴)

Moreover, we'd typically expect to see at least four more children between the 1869 marriage and the 1881 census for a Catholic family in that era. (The Anglican Church marriage notwithstanding, all members of the family are noted in the census as Catholic, as would be suggested by Mary Jane's Catholic baptism.) And indeed, in the 1900 census,⁵ Elizabeth indicates that she had borne a total of ten children, only two of whom (presumably John and Mary Jane) were living. The question is why there are no other extant baptismal records.

1900 U.S. census, Massachusetts, Essex County, Newburyport, Elizabeth Mason household

While Elizabeth and the children in later censuses report their immigration as occurring, variously, anywhere from 1870 to 1885, it's likely that the actual year was about 1883, as Demas and John first appear in Newburyport city directories in the 1884 edition.⁶ (Oddly, that is also the year of Catherine's first directory appearance, despite being listed in the census in 1880.) John lived with his parents until marrying Sarah O'Grady in 1891. Demas worked as a laborer, and died from gastritis on 12 Mar 1895.⁷

1884 Newburyport city directory, entries for "Demes" and John T. Mason at 60 Marlboro St.

1894 Newburyport city directory, entries for Demas and John T. Mason

1896 Newburyport city directory, entries for Demas (died), Elizabeth (widow), and John T. Mason

1900 Newburyport city directory, entries for Elizabeth Mason and Daniel Murphy at 6 Elbow Lane

1906 Newburyport city directory, entries for Elizabeth (died) and John T. Mason

Elizabeth continued to live with her daughter at 6 Elbow Lane following Demas's death. Her brother Daniel boarded with them at least for a while, as he was enumerated there in the 1900 census and is listed there in the 1900 directory. Elizabeth died of "exhaustion from cancer" on 1 Feb 1906, and was buried in St. Mary's Cemetery in Newburyport. According to her death certificate, her father was William Murphy and her mother's name was "unknown."⁸

Death of Elizabeth (Murphy) Mason, 1906, Newburyport, Mass.

After her mother's death, Mary Jane (who never married) lived for a time with her cousin Pius (Peter) Murphy, son of her uncle Daniel.⁹ She died from pulmonary tuberculosis on 18 Oct 1913, and was buried in St. Mary's Cemetery.¹⁰ John and his wife Sarah had two daughters, Honora A. and Elizabeth Mary. Sarah died in 1930 and John in 1942. Neither of their daughters married.

I have no direct evidence that Elizabeth's father was Michael Murphy. However, indirect evidence (a brother Daniel Murphy residing with her in 1900, and Mary Jane living with Daniel's son, her cousin, in 1910) ties her to Daniel, and my (and my brothers') DNA matches strongly indicate that Daniel and my great-great-grandfather William have the same parents.

It's also interesting to note that both Elizabeth's son John, and Mary's daughter Annabelle, as informants on their mothers' death certificates, reported the deceased's father's name to be William, 12 years apart.¹¹ Perhaps a misconception on John's part (stemming from William Murphy's residence in Newburyport at that time) got passed along to cousin Annabelle? Again, DNA matches indicate a link between Mary and my great-great-grandfather.

Unfortunately, since both Elizabeth's daughter and her two grandchildren died without having children of their own, I won't be finding any DNA matches to confirm Elizabeth's place in my family tree. Like Catherine, she will remain as a likely – but unproven – third great aunt.

(This post was inspired by Amy Johnson Crow's 2018 "52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks" challenge.)

---

SOURCES

1. "Prince Edward Island, Canada, Baptisms, Marriages, Burials, 1780-1983," database and images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 5 Sep 2018); Various Church Records; Mount Stewart, Georgetown; 1842-95, 1911, 1918, 1946, 1977 > image 64 of 290, p. 15, Demas Mason and Elizabeth Murphy, 1869; citing FHL film 1630110.
2. "Prince Edward Island Baptism Card Index, 1721-1885," database and digital images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org : accessed 14 Feb 2014); baptism of Mary Jane Mason, 6 June 1873; citing St. Dunstan's Basilica, record book no. 3, p. 341.
3. 1881 census of Canada, Prince Edward Island, district 2, sub-district A, Queens County, Charlottetown, p. 30, dwelling 135, family 135, Demas Mason household; digital images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 14 Feb 2014).
4. I can't help but wonder if there is any possible connection to Catherine Linklighter's residence in the John Burns household in Newburyport in 1880. The timing makes it seem unlikely.
5. 1900 U.S. census, population schedule, Massachusetts, Essex County, Newburyport, enumeration district (ED) 419, sheet 2-A, p. 87 (stamped), dwelling 16, family 21, Elizabeth Mason household; digital images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 22 Feb 2014).
6. The Newburyport Directory, 1884... (Boston: Sampson, Davenport, & Co., 1884) and The Newburyport and Amesbury Directory, [year]... (Boston: Sampson, Murdock, & Co. 1886-1906), entries for "Demes" or Demas Mason (1884, 86, 89, 91, 94, 96), John T. Mason (1884, 86, 89, 91, 94, 96), and Elizabeth Mason (1896, 98, 1900, 02, 04, 06); database and digital images, "U.S. City Directories, 1821-1989," Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 22 Feb 2014). 
7. "Massachusetts Vital Records, 1841-1910," database and digital images, American Ancestors (http://www.americanancestors.org : accessed 22 Feb 2014); Newburyport, vol. 454, p. 530, death of Demas Mason, 1895; citing "original records held by the Massachusetts Archives".
8. "Massachusetts Vital Records, 1841-1910"; Newburyport, vol. 1906/68 (death), p. 189, death certificate, Elizabeth Mason, 1906.
9. 1910 U.S. census, population schedule, Massachusetts, Essex County, Newburyport, enumeration district (ED) 438, sheet 3-A, p. 2145 (penned), dwelling 47, family 52, Peter Murphy household; digital images, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com : accessed 11 Sep 2016).
10. "Massachusetts Vital Records, 1911-1915," database and digital images, American Ancestors (http://www.americanancestors.org : accessed 14 Feb 2014); Newburyport, vol. 1913/75 Death, p. 481, death certificate, Mary Jane Mason, 1913.
11. "Massachusetts, State Vital Records, 1841-1920," database and digital images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org : accessed 19 Jul 2014), Newburyport, death certificate #220 (registered #152), Mary A. (Green) Bamber, 18 Jul 1918.

Saturday Night Genealogy Fun – How Many Ancestors In the 1900 Census?

I decided to accept this week's Saturday Night Genealogy Fun assignment, from Randy Seaver's Genea-Musings:

How many of your ancestors are in the 1900 United States Census?  List them all, their location, their age, and their occupation.  Were any ancestors missed by the census enumerator? [Note: For folks who have census entries in other countries, substitute your country for the U.S. and the closest available census to 1900.]

Working backward through the generations, I have:

• Grandfather Chester F. Kirk, resided in Andover, Oxford County, Maine; age 42, "veternerry surgeon"
• Grandmother Mary Milliken Hodsdon, resided in Andover, Oxford County, Maine; age 18, chamber maid

(Yes, that age difference is correct and not a typo. While they were not yet married at the time of the census, they would be later that year. She would be his fifth wife. Interestingly, with the exception of wife #2, who was of an age with Chester at 28, all of his wives were between 17-19 when married, while he aged from 23 to 43.)

• Grandfather George W. Murphy, resided in Township 8, Prince County, Prince Edward Island; age 14, "farmer's son" [!901 Canada census]
• Grandmother Glenna M. Rabideau, resided in Milan, Coos County, New Hampshire; age 1

• Great-grandfather Silas Kirk, resided in Freeport, Cumberland County, Maine; age 73, carpenter
• Great-grandmother Sarah C. (Sukeforth) Kirk, resided in Freeport, Cumberland County, Maine; age 64, no occupation

• Great-grandfather Marchant Hodsdon, resided in Andover, Oxford County, Maine; age 58, farmer
• Great-grandmother Kate Maria (Rand) Hodsdon, resided in Andover, Oxford County, Maine; age 45, no occupation

• Great-grandfather Dominic Murphy, resided in Township 8, Prince County, Prince Edward Island; age 48, farmer [!901 Canada census]
• Great-grandmother Roseanne (McIntyre) Murphy, resided in Township 8, Prince County, Prince Edward Island; age 37, no occupation [!901 Canada census]

• Great-grandfather Peter Louis Rabideau, resided in Milan, Coos County, New Hampshire; age 30, day laborer
• Great-grandmother Eva (Woodward) Rabideau, resided in Milan, Coos County, New Hampshire; age 29, no occupation

• Great-great-grandmother Dolly (Brister) Rand, resided in Andover, Oxford County, Maine; age 82, no occupation

• Great-great-grandfather William Murphy, resided in Township 51, Kings County, Prince Edward Island; age 70, farmer
• Great-great-grandmother Flora (McDonald) Murphy, resided in Township 51, Kings County, Prince Edward Island; age 68, no occupation

• Great-great-grandfather Louis Rabideau, resided in Milan, Coos County, New Hampshire; age 51, farmer

• Great-great-grandmother Mary (Washburn) Woodward, resided in Dummer, Coos County, New Hampshire; age 69, no occupation

• Great-great-great-grandfather Louis Rabideau, resided in Stoke, Quebec; age 69, occupation unreadable [!901 Canada census]

In summary:

• Three grandparents in the 1900 US census, one in the 1901 Canada census
• Six great-grandparents in the 1900 US census, two in the 1901 Canada census
• Three great-great-grandparents in the 1900 US census, two in the 1901 Canada census, eleven deceased
• One great-great-great-grandparent in the 1901 Canada census, the rest deceased

A total of 18 of my ancestors were alive in 1900-1901 and were enumerated in the 1900 US and 1901 Canada censuses. None were missed.

Thanks for the assignment, Randy!

Catherine (Murphy) Linklighter: 52 Ancestors, #61

Previously, I posted a three-part series on each of two of the four "tentative" third-great aunts and uncle in my Murphy line, "Mysterious Mary" (Murphy) (Bowlen) (Green) Bamber (starting here) and Daniel Murphy (beginning here). Since then, several 4th-cousin autosomal DNA matches to descendants of both Daniel and Mary have shown up in the match lists for me and/or my brothers, leading me to believe that my tentative addition of these two to my tree was indeed justified.

That still leaves two more potential Murphy sisters, Catherine and Elizabeth, living in Newburyport, Mass., during the same time period, late 1800s to early 1900s. Catherine Ann (Murphy) Linklighter is by far the most tenous identification of the whole bunch.

As with her (possible) sister Mary, I haven't found a birth record for Catherine Murphy on Prince Edward Island, and if the 1900 census can be believed, she immigrated in 1860 – not as early as Mary, but still long before PEI's first fully nominal census. (The lack of an 1871 census for PEI is fully as frustrating as the lost 1890 U.S. census.)

Unlike Mary, who first showed up (albeit as an ostensible Campbell rather than a Murphy) in Newburyport marrying George Bowlen in 1853, and can be found in the census and city directories thereafter, Catherine doesn't make an actual appearance there until 1880. Even then, we don't have her first name – just an initial – or her maiden name.

In the somewhat messy 1880 census listing for the John Burns household,¹ "C Linklighter" (female, age 40, widowed) is identified in the Relationship column as House Keeper, which is scratched out. Born in "P.E. Island," her parents were born in Ireland and Scotland. With her is 10-year-old Walter Linklighter, "son of H[ouse] Keep[er]", thus distinguished from the subsequent Burns children, each listed as "son of John" or "dau of John". Walter, himself born in Massachusetts, has both parents born in P.E.I.

1880 U.S. census, Newburyport, Essex County, Massachusetts, C Linklighter
and Walter Linklighter in John Burns household

Thanks to that missing 1890 census, we only get to see Catherine in the census one more time, in 1900.² This time we have her first name, a birth date of May 1840 (consistent with her age of 40 of 1880), and the information that she has had only one child (presumably Walter), and that she immigrated to the U.S. in 1860. She now states that her parents, like herself, were born in Prince Edward Island. Walter, now 30 (born Jan 1870,³ Massachusetts), is still with her, still single, and working as a "boucher" in the shoe industry.⁴

1890 U.S. census, Newburyport, Essex County, Massachusetts, Catherine Linklighter household

The Newburyport city directories⁵ from 1884 through 1904 list Catharine Linklighter (Kate beginning in 1894), widow, first at 174 Merrimac Street (rear) – the same address where she was enumerated in the 1880 census – and later on Atkinson Street (her 1900 enumeration address). Walter was also listed at her address beginning in 1891, when he would have been 21. His occupation was given as "morocco dresser"⁶ until 1904, when he is listed as a clerk.

The Newburyport and Amesbury Directory, 1891 (top) and 1904 (bottom), Linklighter entries

And then, they both disappear from the directories. Kate, at least, was still in Newburyport at the time of her death on 4 Jan 1909, but Walter seems to have disappeared utterly. He was not the informant for his mother's death, as one might have expected; I have been unable to find any trace of him in the 1910 census; and there is no death certificate for him in Massachusetts, unless it's grossly mis-indexed. For that matter, there is no record of a Walter Linklighter born anywhere in Massachusetts any time around 1870, despite what the census says. It's as if mother and son had been beamed down by aliens to Newburyport in 1880, and the son was beamed up again in 1905.

Where, you may ask, did I get the idea from all of this that Catherine was even a Murphy at all, let alone one of my Murphys, and the sister of Mary? From her death certificate.⁷ Granted, details on death certificates are notoriously suspect, and I have yet to identify the "Miss McDonald" who was the informant (she could have been a hired nurse who didn't really know her). Catherine's age is off compared to the census (64, implying a birth year of 1845), and I'm suspicious of the 40-years-dead husband's name being Walter (it may have been assumed that her son was named for his father).

Catherine Ann Linklighter death certificate, 4 Jan 1909, Newburyport, Mass.

However, it's doubtful that any informant would give Catherine's maiden name as Murphy at random. It seems certain that someone present knew that was her maiden name. And it seems equally unlikely that the informant would pull the specific name Michael Murphy out of a hat for Catherine's father; if she didn't know, wouldn't she simply have left it blank, as she did the mother's name?

The final link in my tentative identification chain is the address of Catherine's residence at death: 41 Market St. If you happened to read my 2014 posts about Mysterious Mary, you might recall that Mary Green, along with assorted husbands, children, and sons-in-law, lived at 41 Market Street – as Mrs. Daniel W Green, Mary A Greene, and Mrs. Mary A Bamber – from 1874 right through her death in 1918. Now, Mary did seem to have an occasional unrelated boarder, and Catherine was never listed as a resident at that address, but I can't believe it was a coincidence that she died there after living on Atkinson Street with her son for over 10 years.

My guess is that Walter either left town or died (although the absence of a death record is puzzling) around 1905, and Catherine moved in with her sister Mary, perhaps after Mary's husband Samuel Bamber dropped out of sight around 1906. Being unemployed and not a head of household, she probably would never have been "enumerated" for the city directory. This doesn't, of course, explain why Catherine's father's name was known but not her mother's.

It also can't explain the curious lack of documentation for this woman and her son, aside from two census records, a death certificate, and a series of directory listings. There is nothing before 1880, no marriage record, no birth record for Walter, no death record for Mr. Linklighter, no 1870 census. Linklighter is a somewhat unusual spelling variant of the surname Linkletter, associated with Prince Edward Island but fairly uncommon in the U.S. Either variant should stick out like a sore thumb in the records, but they're just not there. I have to wonder if Catherine (presumably a Catholic judging by her place of burial) had decided that alleged "widowhood" from a non-existent Mr. Linklighter was more acceptable than admitting to, say, unwed motherhood, abandonment, or divorce. If such was the case, then it's no wonder I can't find any records.

Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that I'll find any verification of Catherine's ancestry via DNA matches, as there is no indication that her only child Walter ever married and had children, or even if he survived his mother. So probably Catherine will remain in the "likely but unproven" category in my tree.

(This post was inspired by Amy Johnson Crow's 2018 "52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks" challenge.)

---

SOURCES

1. 1880 U.S. Census, Essex County, Massachusetts, Newburyport, ED 227, p. 2 (penned), dwelling 12, family 19, C Linklighter and Walter Linklighter in John Burns household; digital images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 13 Feb 2014). 
2. 1900 U.S. Census, Essex County, Massachusetts, Newburyport, ED 422, sheet 7A, p. 129 (stamped), dwelling 129, family 146, Catherine Linklighter household; digital images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 13 Feb 2014).
3. Note that if Walter was born in Massachusetts in Jan 1870, he and his mother, at least, ought to be found in the 1870 census. They're not; I've searched for various combinations of Catherine and Walter, with and without ages and birthplaces, with surname Linkl*, Murphy, and none.
4. Darned if I can figure out what that is – "boucher" is French for butcher, and I can't find any connection to the term in the shoe trade, even in the detailed listing of "semi-skilled operatives" in shoe factories and tanneries in U.S. Bureau of the Census, Classified Index to Occupations (n.p.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1921), pp. 109-112.
5. The Newburyport Directory, 1884... (Boston: Sampson, Davenport, & Co., 1884) and The Newburyport and Amesbury Directory, [year]... (Boston: Sampson, Murdock, & Co. 1886-1904), entries for Catharine Linklighter (1884, 86, 89, 91), Kate Linklighter (1894, 96, 98, 1900, 02, 04), and Walter Linklighter (1891, 94, 96, 98, 1900, 02, 04); database and digital images, "U.S. City Directories, 1821-1989," Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 22 Feb 2014). 
6. Morocco leather was a fine goatskin used for, among other things, gloves and the uppers of ladies' shoes. A morocco dresser was one who tanned or otherwise prepared the leather. for use. This may, perhaps, shed some light on Walter's "boucher" occupation in the 1900 census; possibly someone who cut up the leather before or after the tanning process was considered to be a "butcher" of sorts?
7. New England Historic Genealogical Society, "Massachusetts Vital Records, 1841-1910," database and digital images, American Ancestors (http://www.americanancestors.org : accessed 22 Feb 2014); vol. 1909/73 Death, p. 296, death of Catherine Ann Linklighter, Newburyport, 1909, bizarrely mis-indexed as Catherine A. [Murphy] Linkovitch.

Giving It Another Try

Astute readers of this blog (assuming I have any readers left at all) will have realized that I gave up on this year's 52 Ancestors challenge early on, after only eight posts in the series. I decided I was spending more time trying to come up with something to fit the prompts than actually writing about my ancesters – which is, after all, the whole point.

So, I took an extended hiatus devoted to sorting, digitizing, and purging the extensive paper genealogical files I inherited from my brother. The process isn't finished yet, but the boxes of files cluttering my garage are many pounds lighter and considerably more compact than they were a few months ago. (My hard drive, on the other hand, is virtually groaning under the digital weight of so many gigabytes of new files.) Too, in the course of the endeavor, I ran across quite a few documents and research notes that had hitherto escaped my notice, providing fresh grist for my research mill.

Thus refreshed, I'm preparing to dive back into 52 Ancestors, sans prompts, just writing about my forebears and collateral kin as I feel inclined. Can I possibly catch up, after these months of inaction, to produce another 44 posts by the end of the year? My calendar and calculator tell me that's about 2.6 posts per week. Ambitious, maybe, but I'm going to give it a shot.