AUS-Tasmania-L Archives

Archiver > AUS-Tasmania > 2006-01 > 1136523517


From: "Ray Edmunds" <>
Subject: Re: [AUS-Tas] Re: Query re previously married brides
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:58:37 +1000
References: <932074.1136249990840.JavaMail.root@web01ps>


Hi,
As Garry said they were identified by their convicted name, but perhaps
more importantly by the place and date of trial, name of ship and captain's
name. If you look at the musters you'll generally find they required these
latter details for positive identification, especially of those with the
same name, to check against convict lists on that ship/voyage. I've never
been quite sure why the captain/master's name was required, except maybe to
distinguish between transports which made more than one voyage, yet the same
captain often did multiple voyages. Perhaps Garry can throw some light on
why the captain's name? I think this applied more to the earlier years.
Later there was a fairly detailed description of the convict but the ship
and voyage remained an important identifier, both for them and us today.
The Irish passenger/convict lists were either non existent or came very late
and not with the ship. I had an Irish lady whose details didn't come with
the ship and arrived a considerable time later.
All very fascinating.
Regards.

RayE





----- Original Message -----
From: "Garry Wilson" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:59 AM
Subject: [AUS-Tas] Re: Query re previously married brides


> Lyn wrote:
>
>
> "Subject: Query re previously married brides
>
>
> G'day All
> If a bride was previously married what name did/or should she use on her
marriage
> certificate?
> Her previous married name or her maiden name?
> Has there ever been a hard and fast rule to this, as I have an ancestor
that married
> [Sydney 1809] under her maiden name when she had been married previously.
She was a
> convict and I have read that most female convicts were tried and sentenced
under their
> maiden names. Any truth in this?
> Would appreciate any advice
> cheers
> Lyn
> VIC"
>
>
>
> Lyn
>
> The first rule is that there are no rules! Sometimes there are
conventions.
>
> The second thing to realise is that you are talking about a period before
civil registration and although some of the following also applies after
civil registration you have to take things in context.
>
> So what you have to appreciate is that your ancestor simply got married.
She didn't go and get a certificate (I doubt they ever gave a "certificate,
but maybe they did, I've never seen or heard of one like we get now), she
simply got married in a church and the minister wrote the details in a
register. What he chose to write depended on what he was told and
understood. Sure he had a format and there were directives and precedents,
but there are variations according to minister, denomination, place etc etc.
>
> The next thing to appreciate is that despite what the minister wrote down
that might not be what is in the index, so you need to look at the original
document. Very often the woman will be Joan Smith formerly Blahin the
actual register, but that will be indexed generally just as Smith since I
think for example that the NSW bdm records mention that the woman's name is
that relating to her last status. But that relates essentially to civil
registration and of course to the index rather than to the original per se.
>
> So back to 1809, yes it was customary for women convicts in both NSW and
VDL (which was part of NSW anyway) to be known by their name on conviction,
which may or may not have been their maiden name. Unless any one can prove
to me otherwise, my impression from looking at a host of marriages before
1825 in both VDL and NSW is that convicts married generally under their
convict name and this may have been either their maiden name, their married
name or an alias such as a de facto partner's name, but it was generally the
same as their name on conviction, especially if they were still a serving
convict. The practice however, seemed to have followed through for some
time and again you have to be aware of the context. But certainly a woman's
convict name prevailed in many case well after her sentence had expired.
>
> Note that the Irish are particularly good at being difficult to identify
in this regard. At least with the English you often get the alias or
married/maiden names listed on the shipping indents. Not so for the Irish
lasses. I have several examples of Irish convicts who married under a
different name than they were convicted, especially if they had just
recently become free and I'll be blowed If I can work out which name is
maiden and which is married, or just an alias. Or whether there is even any
consistency.
>
> In your case, if you know she was a convict or had been a convict, and you
definately know she was married under her maiden name even though she had
been married, and the name is the same, then this would fit the general
pattern at that time even if she had completed her sentence. After all it
was a penal settlement and the authorities (including those in authority
like ministers) basically tracked the population by a person's name on
conviction.
>
> Hope that helps a bit.
>
> Garry
>
>
> ==== AUS-Tasmania Mailing List ====
> Tasmanian Sites of Interest
> Coal River Valley History
> http://www.users.bigpond.com/aogreen/default.html
>
>
>
> --
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.9/217 - Release Date: 30/12/2005
>
>

This thread: