Angelina Sgapponi was the birth name of the 13 year old Mary Cagnacci recorded as the daughter of William Cagnacci and his wife Charlotte upon arrival in Australia in June 1877.
Read about William and Charlotte before continuing.
Angelina may have started life in Australia with the surname Cagnacci, but she is mostly recorded as Mary Sgapponi, a compromise that seems to have been needed to avoid possibly embarrassing questions, such as ‘Who was the father of Raphael?’.
Raphael was born to Mary Sgapponi (aged 15 years) and an unknown father in January 1880 at William’s and Charlotte’s residence on Leichhardt Street, Spring Hill, Queensland. He survived 5 hours only and is buried in the Toowong Cemetery. Rafael’s death provides the first known record of Mary Sgapponi.
At 17 years old Angelina was accused of larceny in February 1882. The newspaper report suggests Angelina was usually known by her birth name. There also appears to have been some conflict with William, her adoptive father.
LARCENY. – Angelina Sgapponi was charged with having stolen a gold watch and chain, the property of William Cagnocci (sic). Sub-inspector Douglas prosecuted. Detective Vaux gave evidence to the effect that on Wednesday morning he went to the Exchange Hotel in Edward street, in company with the prosecutor, and saw the accused in a side room of the hotel in company with two Italians ; from what the prosecutor told witness in her presence he arrested her, and took her to the watch house in a cab ; he found the watch (produced) in her hand, and asked her where she got it ; she made no reply. Mr Douglas here withdrew the charge, and the prisoner was discharged.
“City Police Court.” The Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864 – 1933) 3 February 1882: 3. Web. 7 Dec 2016 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article3404770>
It was not until 2014 that the existance of an Italian adoption certificate was discovered, showing Angelina Sgapponi as the adopted daughter of William. The reference is found in a newspaper report of a court hearing held on 6 February 1882. See “City Police Court. (1882, February 7). The Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864 – 1933), p. 3. Retrieved April 12, 2019, <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article3405251>.” The court heard of an alleged assault by Anna and Gaetano Salotti on William, who suffered knife wounds or cuts to the back. Angelina contradicted evidence and showed William to be the aggressor. A cross summons was issued against William.
In the adjourned case of William Cagnacci v, Anna and Gaetano Salotti, for assault, Mr. Swanwick appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Byrne, instructed by Mr. Dalby, appeared for the defendants. The prosecutor was recalled, and further examined by Mr. Swanwick and cross examined by Mr. Byrne. Dr. Thomson said he saw William Cagnacci at the hospital between 10 and 11 o’clock on the night of the 31st January ; he made a complaint, and witness examined his body and found an incised wound a quarter of an inch in length and half an inch in depth on the left side ; immediately below this there was a trifling scratch ; there was another slight wound on the back ; he should say that the wound had been caused by the sharp blade of a knife, but was not at all dangerous ; it might also have been caused by the man falling on sharp glass. Another witness was called, but his evidence did not materially effect the case. Angelina Sgapponi contradicted the evidence given by the prosecuting witness in most particulars, and showed that Cagnacci was the aggressor. In answer to Mr. Byrne, she said nobody gave Cagnacci permission to enter the house ; he opened the door of his own accord and went in ; he pushed Mrs Salotti when he went inside, and also struck Gaetano Salotti, knocking him down, before he was struck himself ; Salotti then sent his daughter for a policeman ; Cagnacci told Salotti not to send for a policeman, turned round, and embraced Salotti to show that he was not angry with him. At this stage of the proceedings an adjournment was made until to-morrow (Friday) morning, with a view of settling the matter between the parties, a cross-summons having been issued against Cagnacci.
“City Police Court.” The Brisbane Courier (Qld. : 1864 – 1933) 9 February 1882: 5. Web. 7 Dec 2016 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article3407149>
A subsequent report in the paper of Saturday, 18 February 1882 p6, reports the issue was settled with both summons and cross summons withdrawn.
Eight months later on Friday 6 October 1882, Angelina aged 18 years married her adoptive father William aged 31 years in the Brisbane Cathedral. But it could not have been a simple occasion, rather one people tried to forget or hide, or perhaps they just didn’t know.
The marriage certificate records Angelina Sgapponi and Pietro Eunandesi (aged 31 years) as the bride and groom. It is probable that Pietro Eunandesi is actually William Cagnacci (age 43 years), since Pietro is not documented in later years and records show William in his place.
The birth certificate of Angelina’s fifth child, Curzio, records the marriage being between William Cagnacci and Mary Sgaponni on Saturday, 7 October 1882, one day after that recorded on the marriage certificate.
William appears to have used a false name to hide the marriage to his adopted daughter. One reason for using a false name might be that Carlotta (age 52) is rejected as barren, but remains in the family because she has nowhere to go and becomes a witness to the marriage as a conspirator in hiding Guglielmo’s identity. Charlotte Barrett (age 22) would seem to be the current (de-facto) wife, of 2 years and 2 months, but she is not recorded in later years. Perhaps she departs because of the death of her child.
Alternatively, the timing of her first child’s birth, Joseph Cagnacci in April 1884 is consistent with Angelina marrying Pietro and soon after entering a de-facto relationship with William (perhaps involving her pregnancy with Joseph) and later reporting her marriage to Pietro as her marriage to William, but getting the date wrong by one day.
Neither scenario explains the age difference of 12 years between Guglielmo and Pietro suggested by the marriage certificate, which would be noticeable to acquaintances if they are the same person. The age difference and false name are explained if the only purpose is to permit a marriage ceremony and any information, no matter how suspect, was required.
Another reason for believing Pietro is actually William is the variation in spelling of Eunandesi that appears in the records. Not only does this name not appear to be Italian, Australian records show at least eight spelling variations, as if it was not commonly written or spoken, these are: Armindisi, Eunandesi, Ernandesi, Euandesi, Ermandisi, Ennendesi, Ervandesi or Eruandesi. Also, the birthplace of Pietro is given as Farrgneno on the marriage certificate, but appears made-up or to be a clerical error. The letters ‘rrgn’ are not typical in Italian spelling. The closest place name could be Fariglieno, a town near Pisa.
If the reported age at her death of 77 years 5 months is correct, Angelina Sgapponi was born in August or September 1864 in Pisa, Italy. This birthdate is not inconsistent with her reported age on arrival of 13 years. Angelina may have arrived in Australia as Mary Cagnacci and been known, at least to the law courts, as Angelina Sgaponni before her life changed dramatically and she become Mary Cagnacci wife and mother. But that was before she become Mary Natoli, once more a wife and mother.