Cecilia Margaret Devenish

Audited 31 Jul 2026 — her first. ★ THE CENSUS OF ELPHIN 1749 SHOWS HER ALIVE AND HEADING A HOUSEHOLD AT KILLUMMOD. Killummod parish, p. 67 [f.44]: 'KILLUMOD | SISLEY PLUNKETT WIDOW PAP | Farmer' with 2 children under 14, 4 above 14, 2 men servants and 3 women servants, all Papist — ELEVEN PEOPLE COUNTED. ◎ GRADED STRONG, NOT PROVEN; the record gives no age and no parentage. Basis: SISLEY/CICELY IS THE STANDARD ENGLISH VERNACULAR OF CECILIA and this tree already carries 'Cecelia' as her alternate name; b. 1690 makes her ~59; and she is the widow of [1641] Richard Plunkett, WHO DIED IN 1747, two years before the census, at the parish where he was born and where the marriage F517 is placed. ✅ The household holds SIX children and F517 records exactly six. ⚠️ BUT THE AGE SPLIT DOES NOT MATCH: the census gives 2 under 14, and this tree's years give AT MOST ONE under 14 in 1749 (François was 27 and very likely already in Saint-Domingue). Two of the six birth years are 'abt'. THE TOTALS AGREEING AT SIX MAY BE COINCIDENCE — it is not counted as a further point of agreement, no birth year was changed, and HER DEATH DATE WAS DELIBERATELY LEFT OPEN rather than closed to 'aft 1749' on an identification graded short of proven. The record is the IMC printed edition (Legg, Dublin 2004) of manuscript NAI M2464, read as page images on FindMyPast, not the manuscript hand. COVERAGE: every line of Killummod parish (pp. 67-70) was read on the images, and there are EXACTLY TWO Plunkett households in it. Memo: ancestry/plunkett-dunsoghly-junction.md ── ADDENDUM 31 Jul 2026 (2): HER DEATH IS NOW CLOSED TO 'AFT 1749' on Owen's decision, and the reason the earlier note gave for leaving it open DID NOT SURVIVE RE-CHECKING. That reason was the census's '2 children under 14', which the tree's birth years for F517 cannot accommodate. ⭐ BUT EVERY DATE IN THAT COMPARISON IS UNCITED: her own b. 1690 carries ZERO citations, all six children's birth years carry ZERO, and all six child-links are ProofFather/ProofMother = 0. The objection was therefore a READ RECORD being outweighed by an unevidenced list — and the specific arithmetic that troubled me, her bearing children at 46 and over, rests ENTIRELY on that uncited 1690. ⭐ The tree was also already inconsistent with itself: her Residence 1749 at Killummod, written the same night, asserts she was alive there in 1749, so a blank death date was not caution but two records of one judgment disagreeing. ⚠️ THE MISMATCH IS RE-FILED, NOT DISMISSED, AND IT BELONGS TO THE CHILDREN'S DATES: the census implies TWO CHILDREN BORN c. 1736-1749 whom this tree does not have, alongside four above 14. That is a live research lead against six uncited birth years — François 1722, Christopher 1726, Jean Joseph 1728, Peter 1732, John abt 1734, Richard abt 1735 — not a doubt about who she is. The identification remains graded STRONG: Sisley is the vernacular of Cecilia, she is a widow, her husband [1641] Richard died in 1747, and the whole parish held exactly two Plunkett households. If it is ever overturned, this date comes off in one line. Memo: ancestry/plunkett-dunsoghly-junction.md