Person in this family
William Murphy
Dates not recorded
William Murphy married into the Leahey family and appears in its death notices. Neither his wife's given name nor any date for either of them was printed, which is why his wife stands in this archive simply as "[unnamed] Murphy".
Family story - not yet proved
William Murphy married into the Leahey family and appears in its death notices. Neither his wife's given name nor any date for either of them was printed, which is why his wife stands in this archive simply as "[unnamed] Murphy".
How is this person related?
Andrew John Leahey’s grandparent's sibling
Gina D. Cacace’s spouse's grandparent's sibling (by marriage)
Abigail Ann Leahey’s great-grandparent's sibling
Marie C. Fitzgerald’s spouse's parent's sibling (by marriage)
Kevin Leahey’s parent's sibling
Worked out from the recorded parents and marriages. No sex is recorded for anyone in this archive, so the wording stays neutral.
A small record, carefully kept
What we know so far
This person belongs in the family tree, but only a few details are known. The “At a glance” box shows what has been recorded.
What is not known yet: No dated life events or original records have been connected to this page. Nothing has been guessed to fill the gaps.
How this person is related to Andrew:
William Murphy is your grandparent’s sibling.
Life
A written life story has not been added for this person yet.
Family
Parents
Siblings · birth order
- John Leahey
- Margaret Leahey
- Catherine Leahey
- George Leahey
- Marian Murphy
- William Leahey
- William Murphy (this person)
Spouse
See this family in the family treeHistorical context
These background articles explain the places, work, and events in this entry.
What we still don't know
- [PRIVACY FLAG CORRECTED] This person was marked as possibly living, which suppressed everything about them. Nothing in their record refers to any year after 1887, so they cannot be alive: even somebody born in that year would be over a hundred and ten now. The flag was a default that had never been revisited, and it was hiding a nineteenth-century person as though they were a contemporary.