Seeking Information on Family of Henry Hagan and Elizabeth Hagan of Down County

Tullylish RC baptisms start in 1833 so if that's the parish the family lived in, then  you would expect all or most of the childrens baptisms to be listed there. They are viewable free on the nli site. Have you checked them? The prefixes O' & Mc on Irish surnames is detachable in Irish names and was often added or dropped at whim. So O'Hagan is certainly a possibility for their name in church records. What was Henry's occupation in Ireland, do you know? If a farmer he should appear in the land records. If he was a labourer then he may be harder to trace (and may have moved around a bit too).

Would the name Fagan been another variation for Hagan? 

Hi Elwyn Hi Jane

Thank you both for responding. I will search baptisms on the site you referenced.

Family legend is that a Hagan from the north married a Hagan from the south and Henry and Elizabeth are likely these folks. None of my Hagan relatives use Fagan but anything is possible. 

Take care and keep in touch.

Dan

Thank you for introducing me to the nli site. I located a marriage record for my great grandparents William O'Hagan and Catherine Feenan on 2 May 1868. They were married in the Dromore Diocese in a Roman Catholic ceremony. In the 1870 US Census (2 years later), William and Catherine Hagan were in Smithfield/Lonsdale RI with a young daughter and many of William's siblings living in the same household most with jobs listed. 

Dan,

In your original post you mentioned the O’Hagan family might have come from Ballynagarrick Lower. There is a Henry Hagan listed there on a 2 acre cottiers plot (plot 30) in Griffiths Valuation. He was succeeded in 1875 by Arthur, who in turn was succeeded in 1901 by Mary Ann. Here’s Mary Ann in the 1901 census:

http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1901/Down/Tullylish/Ballynagamick/1243807/

I can’t find what happened to Arthur. This may be that Henry dying in 1878 aged 80. If so, he was a bachelor.

https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1878/020515/7199191.pdf

The 1868 marriage ought to be in the civil records but sadly it’s not. That’s a pity because it would have given the couples townland sand that would undoubtedly have helped.  In the early years of civil registration (it started in 1864) priests didn’t always notify the civil authorities of their marriages which is a shame because there was more information in most civil certificates eg addresses, occupations etc.