On May 18, 1886 Carlo married Catherine Hanley. They were married by the rites of the Free Church of England at Moor Street, Fitzroy by the Reverend Nathaniel Kinsman. Their address on the marriage certificate was listed as Marney Street, Fitzroy. I believe that this is actually Mahoney Street which can be pronounced as Marney as I cannot find a Marney Street in any old street directory in Fitzroy and this is confirmed as when their first child, Edward, was born a few weeks later on June 2, 1886 their address was Florence Cottage, Mahoney Street, Fitzroy. The marriage certificate tells us the usual information - Carlo was 33 and Catherine was 26; he was an engineer, Catherine's occupation was the all purpose 'lady'; his parents are listed as Enrico and Augusta (nee Geri) Catani and Catherine's folks are listed as John and Anne Hanley - John was a farmer. I can't read Anne's maiden name on the marriage certificate (see below). Carlo had been born in Florence and Catherine has her place of birth as Belfast, Victoria, the original name for Port Fairy.
From the Marriage certificate of Carlo and Catherine
So far so good, however I am not sure that I believe the Catherine Hanley story - was that her true name? We can't find her index to her birth, I can find no other children born to a John and Ann(e) Hanley born in Victoria, neither can I find the death of person in Victoria with John Hanley as the father and Ann(e) as the mother; I can find no Hanleys born in the Port Fairy area between 1850 and 1870. There is evidence that the Hanleys were in the area in the 1910s, for instance Edward Hanley took up the proprietorship of the
Port Fairy Gazette, sometime after 1902 according to the obituary of his wife, Ethel, which you can read
here.
I also can't find a death of a John or Ann(e) Hanley with a Port Fairy connection, I bought the death certificate of the Anne Hanley who died in 1879 and that was not her - she only been in the country for three months and she did have a daughter Catherine, who was 40 years old, around 20 years older than Catherine Hanley who was born, according to the marriage certificate around 1860. Neither can I find the record of a marriage of a John Hanley to an Ann(e). I have also checked Ancestry database and cannot find any matching records.
From the Marriage certificate of Carlo and Catherine - showing the Reverend Kinsman signature
So, clearly lack of corroborating evidence is not normally enough to convince me that Catherine's information of her marriage certificate may have been untrue, so I thought I would see if the witnesses to the wedding gave us any clue to her identity - they were Lydia Kinsman and Maria Lancaster. Lydia was the wife of the minister, Nathaniel Kinsman. She died in 1905 at the age of 80 (thus born around 1825) and the Index to Victorian Deaths has her parents listed as Jonathan Leeming and Ruth Lancaster, so I presume that Lydia and Maria were cousins or some other relation. Kinsman's obituary said that he married in 1845 and they had no children. Either way, this seemed to indicate that they, the witnesses, were not connected to Catherine Hanley, genealogically wise, so that was a dead end. Then I put Nathaniel Kinsman name into
Trove and is he a true treasure trove of surprises.
The Weekly Times March 5, 1898
It turns our that the Reverend Kinsman founded his own church, the Free Church of England, and celebrated close to 10,000 marriages, including that of Carlo and Catherine. Here is an excerpt from his obituary published in
The Weekly Times, March 5 1898 - read it
here
Mr Kinsman founded the Victorian Free Church of England in 1862, taking as the nucleus of the new establishment a portion of the congregation, of St Mark's Church, Fitzroy. It was he who drew up the 'principles' of the new church, and he always entertained a conspicuous pride in them. Indeed, it was his constant habit on Sundays to stand at the door of his little church in Abbotsford street, Fitzroy, and regard them with affectionate interest. Anyone who has read the invariable procedure of new churches will recognise, as a matter of course, that Mr Kinsman, the moving spirit in the secession, naturally dropped into the position of head minister for life. In that capacity he was recognised by the State, and he was authorised not only to celebrate marriages himself, but to recommend others for similar privileges. These two powers exercised a notable effect upon his after career. The first laid the foundation of his stupendous marriage business. The second involved him in disputes which more than once threatened the disruption of the church and the consequent stoppage of the cheapest and easiest method of tying the nuptial knot ever known in Victoria Felix.
It goes on to say that Kinsman also operated a second hand furniture business and auction rooms
The auctioneer walked out of his shop into his private parlor and by the simple act of crossing the mat was transformed into the priest. The couples, mostly extremely young, and sometimes extremely old, seated themselves on the well worn sofa, sanctified by so many thousands of similar union, and the
whole thing was over in a very few minutes. The parson went back to his shop, and the happy couple departed to realise the meaning of 'Till death us do part'
It is an undoubted fact that many fortunate marriages have been conducted by Mr Kinsman. It is also a fact equally undoubted that the proportion of divorces and other disagreeable proceedings consequent upon these Fitzroy unions is very large. How did Mr Kinsman work up this enormous business, and why, in spite of the stigma which attached to marriages celebrated by him did couples come from all parts of the colony for the express purpose of being united in Mr Kinsman's little front parlor. To use the words of a member of his congregation 'Because he charged small fees, and asked no unnecessary questions'.
The Reverend Nathaniel Kinsman, c. 1880.
Photographer: William B. Latimer.
It is this last sentence 'asked no unnecessary questions' that I believe strengthens my case that Catherine Hanley did not give the the correct information - was she hiding something? I wondered if she had been married before and divorced (or married and not divorced). Alternatively, she may have honestly believed that John and Ann were her parents, that she had been born in Port Fairy as that is what she had been told by them or whoever raised her. My other thought is that she was born illegitimately and may have been raised by members of the Hanley family. However, why then would they need to be married by the Reverend Kinsman - Carlo was in a good and respectable job, so money wasn't the issue. Why did they only get married two weeks before the birth of their first child, that's why I wonder if she wasn't already married and waiting for the divorce. Or maybe they were just the original Fitzroy hipsters who had decided that marriage was just a piece of paper and that love was all they needed, but, all of a sudden two weeks before the baby was born, a cloud of conventionality descended upon them and they decided to go down the marriage aisle after all. Who knows? And yes, I know that none of this matters now or that it in any way diminishes Carlo's career or the family life he shared with Catherine and their children, so if you think my theory that Catherine Hanley provided false information on her marriage certificate, either deliberately or innocently, is rubbish then I will be happy to be proven wrong!
If you are interested in the Reverend Nathaniel Kinsman I have created a list of newspaper articles on him and some of his marriages that ended with bigamy charges on Trove, click here to access the list.
