RootsChat.Com
Research in Other Countries => Australia => Topic started by: Tiffaney on Monday 04 July 11 07:42 BST (UK)
-
Are any members connected to or can please help me learn more about
the children's marriages etc. in the following:
Charles FLUERTY/FLUTEY
Born: 1768 Ireland
Died 14 Apr 1842 Colonial Hospital Tasmania Australia
Married: 21 Mar 1816 St Phillips Sydney NSW Australia
Spouse: Mary Ann GRIGGS
Born: 28 Mar 1798 Sydney NSW Australia
Died: 01 Oct 1839 Brisbane St Hobart Tasmania Australia
Children:
1) Charles FLUERTY b: 21 Dec 1816 Sydney NSW Australia
2) Mary Adeline FLUERTY b: 25 Oct 1818 Tasmania Australia
3) Joseph Charles FLUERTY b: 1820 Tasmania Australia. Married Mary Ann NASH at Hobart Southern Tasmania on 24 Nov 1855
4) John Joseph FLUERTY b: 09 Apr 1821 Hobart Southern Tasmania
5) Elizabeth FLUERTY b: 1825 Tasmania.
Thankyou,
Tiffaney
-
There is a death registration number 1146 for an Elizabeth Fluerty 28 Jan 1826 Hobart Tasmania No age given.
-
Joseph Charles and Mary Ann Nash's children in case you don't have them
Joseph Thomas born 15 June 1857 Hobart reg no 590
Charles henry 24 dec 1858 Hobart reg no 2114
M (for male?) Fluerty 29 June 1860 reg no 3503
Marion Blanche 9 Nov 1862 reg no 5653
-
Charles Henry Fluerty married a Christina Burrows possibly in Victoria I found this out because this is the death of their son
Roy Lawrence Burrows died 1902 Tallangatta Victoria reg no 11814 born 1898.
Death Charles Henry 19 July 1934 Queensland BO24754 page 531 father Charles Henry Fluerty and mother Mary Ann Nash
Death Robert Arthur Fluerty 24 Sept 1928 Queensland B00 5739 page 568 Father Charles Joseph mother Mary Ann Mash
Joseph Thomas Fluerty son of Joseph Charles and Mary Ann Nash died 1909 age 52 in East Melbourne Victoria reg no 2356 Mother's name is transcribed as Mary Ann Helb E Nash
Alexander Duncan Fluerty Died 15 June 1947 Queensland 000855 page 929 father Charles Henry mother Christina Burrows
-
Possibility this could be Mary Adeline.
FLUERTY, ADELINA
Marriage: 1837 - HOBART, TASMANIA ( ATCHESON, GEORGE ) [AO]
Death:
Other Names: ADELINA BLACKBURN ????
ADELINA ATCHESON ???????
Also possibility these children adopted??? Family Ophans?
Children: ATCHISON MARIANNE SOPHIA 1839
ATCHISON GEORGE FRANCIS B 1842
BLACKBURN M 1842
ATCHISON EDWIN STOOKE 1846
BLACKBURN ADELINE SUSANNA 1848
-
It appears that George's name was actually George Atchison BLACKBURN.
Just as an aside, I would be researching Charles FLEURTY with extra care and a large packet of Panadol ;D I suspect that he is Pierre Charles FLAHERTE (alias Francis QUEC or Quce) who arrived in NSW on the Indefatigable in 1812, and then to Tasmania in 1816 on the Kangaroo. His Tas description document gives his native place as Bolonga? - given his name this may be Boulogne in France.
Debra :)
-
Marriage Charles Henry Tasman Fluerty, Ctina Burrows
1891 Victoria reg no 2746
Children of this couple
Marion Blanche 1892 Mitta Mitta Victoria father Charles Henry Tasman Fluerty mother Ctinia Burrows
Henry George Fluerty Mitt Victoria 1893 Charles Fluerty and Christina Burrows reg no 33772
Alex Duncan Fluerty Mitta Mitta Victoria 1895 father Charles Henry tasman Fluerty mother Ctina Burrows
Herbert Charles Fluerty 1896 Victoria father Charles Henry Tasman Fluerty mother Ctina Burrows
Flora Lillian Fluerty 1902 Mitta Mitta Victoria father Chas Hy Tasman Fluerty mother Ctina Burrows
Isobel Cath Fluerty 1905 Mitta Mitta Victoria father Chas Hy Fluerty mother Ctina Burrowes reg no 4079
Marriage Robert A Fluerty, Laura E Thomas
1883 Moruya NSW 1883. Reg no 3976.
-
I am a descendant of John Joseph Fluerty who settled in Akaroa, in the South Island of New Zealand. His mother Mary Ann Griggs according to our info was deported to Norfolk Island for reputedly stealing a speckled apron from her employer. She survived the Norfolk Island colony and settled in Australia.
John Joseph Flutey- his first wife died. He married again to Merehana Puha.
Our lot originated from the South Island and settled in Otaki in the North Island of NZ.
-
Thankyou so much for all your help crisane, Floozy, and Dundee. Great breakthru with his being Pierre & arriving in NSW 1912. Must check on his lifetime cobber's George Masons arrival date in Tasmania.
RF would very much like you to get in touch with me as I have a forum you might be interested in joining.
Greatly appreciate your lookups and time all.
regards,
Tiffaney
-
I am a descendant of John Joseph Fluerty who settled in Akaroa, in the South Island of New Zealand. His mother Mary Ann Griggs according to our info was deported to Norfolk Island for reputedly stealing a speckled apron from her employer. She survived the Norfolk Island colony and settled in Australia.
John Joseph Flutey- his first wife died. He married again to Merehana Puha.
Our lot originated from the South Island and settled in Otaki in the North Island of NZ.
above information is not quite correct - Sarah Griggs was convicted of stealing a speckled/spotted apron in the kent assizes and eventually sent to NSW, aboard the neptune as part of the second fleet. Her daughter Mary Ann griggs was born through a liason with one of two men, Capt John Townsend or ensign James Lucas Hunt. All of Sarahs children were educated by Capt Townsend who seemed to maintain an interest. Mary Ann Griggs married Charles fluerty - he was a convict who had been convicted in Ireland and was originally from either France or Italy. One of their sons John Flutey worked on whaling ships from an early age and ended up in New Zealand. To our knowledge Mereana Puaha was his first wife, but following her death he married Phoebe Howland. I believe there may also have been a third wife. Woul be very interested to know if there was a prior wife though so please message me information if you can. cheers Ruth
-
Apologising in advance for a post that disagrees with fondly held family history for some of the descendants of Charles Fluerty.
As a keen student of Australian History I find Charles Fluerty’s story fascinating:
http://foundersandsurvivors.org/pubsearch/convict/chain/c31a31130018
http://www.fleurtys.com.au/about_chas_fleurty.html#_ftn21
Charles arrived on the “Indefatigable” in Hobart on 19 October 1812. Apparently this was the first transport to take convicts from England direct to Van Diemens Land.
There exists a list of convicts transported on the “Indefatigable” in the British Home Office Records. This record in the Australian Convict Transportation Registers – Other Fleets & Ships, 1791-1868, Microfilm Roll 87, Class and Piece Number HO11/2, begins:
Account of Convicts delivered on board the Indefatigable and Mistral on or about the 9th Day of May 1812 to be Transported to the Coast of New South Wales or some one or other of the Islands adjacent.
Charles Fluerty’s record is a part of a list of Court Martials at the end of this record. His individual record reads:
Pierre Charles Flaherte als Francis Quec als Quce, do Monmouth “ , 30 January 1812, Life
In the above als is an abbreviation of alias, do is an abbreviation of ditto, and “ is used as a place marker. The do (ditto) is under the words Court Martial. Charles’s record is immediately below that of Tryce Okey which reads
" do " Gladiator Portsmouth, 29 October 1811 Life
It is Tryce’s record that explains what Charles’ record means. Tyrce was court martialed whilst he was serving aboard the “Gladiator” whilst the “Gladiator” was anchored at Portsmouth, whilst in contrast Charles was court martialed whilst he was serving aboard the “Monmouth” but does not tell us where the ship was anchored at the time.
( 2 websites which have got their information from the same source. Note both Flaherte, Pierre Charles and Okey, Tryce:
http://www.convictrecords.com.au/ships/indefatigable-and-minstrel/1812
http://www.historyaustralia.org.au/twconvic/Indefatigable+1812 )
Charles appears on the 1822 muster of NSW (Van Diemens Land was then part of NSW). On a list of convicts then in Van Diemens Land his individual record reads:
Charles Fleurty, Cond(itiona)l pardon, Indefatigable, Cross (Master/Captain of ship), 1812 (date of arrival), Life (sentence), in the Downs (place), 1810 (when), 2 (male children), 1 (female children)
An identical record appears on Charles’ individual conduct record held in Tasmania, on which his first Colonial offence recorded is dated July 19, 1821, is titled:
Fleurty Chas, Indefatigable 1812, In the Downs 1810, Life
and adds in the margin
G C 13 Nov 1833, 7 years
which was a subsequent Colonial conviction received in Hobart.
http://foundersandsurvivors.org//pubsearch-xsl/image/viewer.html?CON31-1-13,188,12
These last 2 records, the 1822 muster and Charles’ conduct record do not agree with the earlier record from when he was delivered to the Indefatigable in England in that the subsequent Tasmanian lists record that he was tried in 1810, while the original British Record is that he was tried on 30 January 1812. This appears to be the only mistake in the record as it is very possible that Charles was tried while the “Monmouth” was anchored in the Downs as the “Monmouth” was the flag-ship of the Commander of the Downs (see below). What exactly was “the Downs”? It was an area in the sea off the east coast of Kent, and near to the port of Deal, where ships anchored. It was a gathering point and permanent base for warships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Downs
A misreading of the conduct record has led at least one historian to write that Charles was convicted at County Down, Northern Ireland, for 7 years.
http://www.fleurtys.com.au/about_chas_fleurty.html
The mistake that Charles was convicted in Ireland is also repeated by the previous poster.
A reading of the documents shows that Charles was serving in the British Navy as a sailor aboard the “Monmouth” when he was court martialed while the ship was anchored in the Downs off the east coast of Kent and he received a sentence of transportation for Life on 30 January 1812. The HMS Monmouth was a 64-gun third-rate sailed by the British Navy between 1796 and 1815. In January 1812 the time Monmouth was the flagship of Vice-Admiral George Campbell, Commander-in-Chief of the Downs station.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Monmouth
&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Monmouth_%281796%29
A reading of the above documents also shows that Charles was known as Pierre Charles Flaherte at the time of his conviction, but also had an alias of Francis Quec or Quce.
An investigation of the Military records held in Britain may reveal more about Charles in his time before he was transported, and more about his conviction.
(Continued in next post)
-
(Continued from previous post)
In the 1822 muster it was recorded that Charles had 3 surviving children, 2 boys and 1 girl. The first 2 posters in this thread name instead 4 children born to 1822 for whom no birth records exist:
1) Charles c1816
2) Adeline c1818
3) Joseph c1820
4) John c1821
With a 5th child Elizabeth born about 1825 and dying on 28 Jan 1826 (#1146).
That the daughter Adeline existed comes at least from the marriage of Adeline Fluerty to George Atcheson in Hobart on 22 Nov 1837 (#3800).
That the son Joseph existed comes at least from his record of marriage and children as outlined in the previous posts.
That the son John existed is attested to by the previous poster who wrote:
One of their sons John Flutey worked on whaling ships from an early age and ended up in New Zealand
and another poster who wrote
I am a descendant of John Joseph Fluerty who settled in Akaroa, in the South Island of New Zealand.
That the son Charles may have existed may be attested by one of the 2 following references:
(1) There is a Charles Fluerty listed as being employed as a coxswain (person in charge of a boat) in the Commandant’s Department, Port Arthur in 1841
(Archives Office of Tasmania, General index
http://www.fleurtys.com.au/about_chas_fleurty.html#_ftn12)
when Charles himself was in his 70s and his son Charles, if he existed, was in his early 20s,
or perhaps
(2) the earlier death in Hobart of a Charles Fluty on 10 June 1835 (#4083)
(Unless one or both of these records is neither Charles nor his son but is for different Charles Fluertys altogether.)
If the son Charles did exist then either the son John was born after the details were taken for the 1822 Muster which suggests that a date of birth from the poster who began this thread of 9 Apr 1821 is too early; or alternatively the record of 2 sons & 1 daughter on the 1822 muster is incorrect.
Charles’ wife’s name is known to be Mary, and this is evidenced from her name being recorded on Charles’ conduct record on 22 Feb 1832 and from her death record in Hobart on 1 Oct 1839 (#89).
The poster who began this thread said that Charles married Mary Griggs in Sydney on 21 Mar 1816, and this marriage to Mary Griggs is agreed to by 2 of the subsequent posters.
However, if Charles arrived on the “Indefatigable” in 1812 which went straight to Hobart Town, would not Charles have been in Tasmania continually from his arrival 1812 until his death in 1842*? Does it not appear that the idea that Charles married Mary Griggs is incorrect? And was not their first son Charles, if he did exist, born in Tasmania as were the other children?
(* except for 1832-33 when according to the historian Kathy Evans he was employed as a crew member on the whaling ship Hetty when his voyages included trips to the whaling grounds and Sydney. [Archives office of Tasmania, Shipping Departures Index]
http://www.fleurtys.com.au/about_chas_fleurty.html#_ftn12 )
If Charles arrived on the “Indefatigable” in 1812 which went straight to Hobart Town, how could he have been on the “Kangaroo” from Sydney to Tasmania in April or December 1816?
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~austashs/convicts/conships_k.htm
Thanks to my ancestry.com subscription I have been able to check the below documents and Charles was not on the list of 100 male and female convicts transported to Hobart in Apr 1816, and his wife was not on the list of passengers. He was also not on the list of convicts transported in Dec 1816.
Colonial Secretaries Index 1788-1825
“Kangaroo”. Brig
* 1816 Apr 10 List of 100 male and female convicts embarked on for the Derwent (Reel 6004; 4/3494 p.461)
* 1816 Apr 12 Passengers to embark for Hobart on (Reel 6004; 4/3494 p.454)
* 1816 Dec 16 List of convicts to be sent to the Derwent on (Reel 6005; 4/3495 p.382
http://colsec.records.nsw.gov.au/indexes/colsec/k/F30c_ka-ke-01.htm#P402_15862
Even more, if Charles arrived on the “Indefatigable” in 1812 which went straight to Hobart Town, how could he have been in Sydney marrying Mary Griggs in 1818 at St Phillips?
V18181900 3A/1818, FLUTY CHARLES, GRIGGS MARY, CA (Index on BDM NSW)
And as a serving convict, where is the permission to marry?
(It appears that the “Kangaroo” was chosen as it travelled from Sydney to Hobart in 1816 without the passenger and convict lists having being checked, after first a transcription error which changed the date of the potential marriage from 1818 to 1816.)
The wife of Charles cannot be Mary Griggs but is Mary Unknown. She is also referred to only as Mary with no maiden surname in the document by the historian Kathy Evans.
http://www.fleurtys.com.au/about_chas_fleurty.html#_ftn21
That then leaves the problem of who was the Charles Fluty who did marry Mary Griggs in 1818 in Sydney? That at this point is unknown, but proves that there were at least 2 adult Charles Fluertys in the Colony of New South Wales (which included Van Diemens Land) in 1818.
[The above transcriptions are all the work of this poster.]
-
More information on Charles Fluerty:
In the 1822 muster Charles Fluerty is recorded as in receipt of a Conditional Pardon.
Then according to his conduct record in Tasmania Charles committed the following Colonial Offences:
July 19 1821 CE / Drunk & dis(orderl)y & break(in)g the peace to pay a fine of 5/-
Oct(obe)r 9 1822 CE / Selling Spirits with(ou)t license – to pay the mitigated penalty of £10
July 18 1829 TS / Com(mitte)d for trial on susp(icio)n of steal(in)g Govt Timber at the Sawing Establishm(en)t at Birhes Bay – aft(er)w(ar)ds admitted to Bail
June 10 1830 TS / Creating an affray on the Public Wharf at Hobart Town by fighting with Jno(John) Steward on the 15th of last month. Ord(ere)d to f(or)w(ar)d sureties of the peace for three months
Sep(embe)r 17 1831 CE / Drunk(enne)ss fined 5/-
Sep(embe)r 19 1831 CE / Assaulting his wife. Ord(ere)d to f(or)w(ar)d sureties to keep the peace &c(etc)
Oct(obe)r 15 1831 CE / Drunk(enne)ss last night [fined 5/- crossed out] Reprimanded
Feb(ruar)y 22 1832 CE / Assaulting & beating Mary his wife who hath prayed Sureties of the Peace. Ordered to f(or)w(ar)d Sureties of the Peace 3 Mo(nth)s
Aug(us)t 31 1833 CE / Drunk fined 5/-
Oct(obe)r 19 1833 CE / St(ealin)g Seven Hundred Weight of Salt of the Goods &c(etc) of Mrs Fanny Kelly and Thomas Lucas, Comm(itte)d for Trial
Oct(obe)r 23 1833 admitted to Bail for his appearance at the next General Gaol Delivery of the Sup(erintendan)t Co(ur)t, six preceding offences
(In Margin) GC 13 Nov 1833 7 Years
Oct(obe)r 15 1836 Bastian / Improper conduct, disch(arge)d
Oct(obe)r 27 1836 Bastian / Neglect of duty & repeated drunkenness, hard labor out of ch(ain)s for 3 Months / Spring Hill R(oa)d p(ar)ty Vide Lieut(enant) Gov(erno)rs Decis(io)n 12th Nov(embe)r 1836
Feb(ruar)y 22 1837 Messd Murdock / Disob(edien)ce of orders Cells on B(read) & Water 48 hours
April 24 1837 Murdock / Out after hours & presenting himself to be free, Cells on B(read) & Water 7 days
May 23 1837 Murdock / Absent without leave Admon(ishe)d & ret(urne)d to an assign(e)d P(ar)ty
June 23 1837 Rhodes / Absconding & losing and making away with 17/- of his Masters property, hard labor in Chains 9 Months / Grass Tree Hill C(hai)n Gang & conduct to be rev(iewe)d Vide Lieut(enant) Gov(erno)rs Decis(io)n 19 July 1837 Penitentiary Hobart for assign(nmen)t Vide Mem(oria)l Col ==== 1772
April 30 1838 ===Party / ===== ==== == ===== == ====
October 9 1838 Marine Dept / Drunk, T(read) Wheel 5 days
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1333759/treadwheel
Nov(embe)r 1st 1838 Marine Dept / Absent from duty without leave, Sal confinement on B(read) & W(ater) for 3 days
April 18 1839 Marine Dept / Absent from Barracks all nght, 5 days Cell on B(read) & W(ater)
May 16 1839 M Dept / Absent from ==== ===
June 24 1839 M Dept / Drunk & absent from his duty - Hard labour with chains 3 Months ==/ Confirmed S(pring) Hill R(oa)d P(ar)ty threw(sic) Oatlands for ass(i)g(nmen)t vide L(ieutenant) G(overnor’s) Decision 26 June 1839.
His excellency has granted this Man a remission of his Col(onial) sentence and to be returned to his Conditional Pardon Vide Orders of = =
18.3.(18)34 Bridg(e)w(or)k, 7.7.(18)36 C H, 5.11.(18)35 N(ew) N(orfolk), 20.11.(18)36 C P U, 27.8.(18)37 C Hill ==, 14.2.(18)40 ==
http://foundersandsurvivors.org//pubsearch-xsl/image/viewer.html?CON31-1-13,188,12
On the 1841 muster Charles appears as:
Charles Fluerty, Indefatigable, Free Pardon
The above transcriptions are all the work of this poster.
Many abbreviations were used in the original of the Conduct Record and sections in ( ) have been added into the text for understanding. Where the abbreviation is unknown to this poster it has not been expanded. == has been used where this poster was unable to transcribe that section. Letters representing the names of the men who made the various decisions have been omitted from the transcription.
-
Hi there,
May I simply note that during the Governorship of Lachalan Macquarie, the parish registers for St Phillips Church, Sydney Town include TRANSMITTED records of baptisms, burials and marriages conducted ELSEWHERE in New South Wales, and by clergy who were not Anglicans.
So Mary Griggs 1818 (or 1816 ;D) marriage may have been celebrated by a clergyman who was NOT an Anglican and it may have been celebrated in VDL, which was definitely part of NSW in 1818. That clergyman has likely then TRANSMITTED his record to St Phillips where the Rev Cowper was the Anglican minister. Rec Cowper was one of the NSW Chaplains appointed by Gov. Macquarie. St Phillips register is extant.
May I suggest the following links:
http://www.records.nsw.gov.au/state-archives/guides-and-finding-aids/archives-in-brief/archives-in-brief-7
http://www.records.nsw.gov.au/state-archives/guides-and-finding-aids/short-guide-2/short-guide-2
http://www.records.nsw.gov.au/state-archives/guides-and-finding-aids/short-guide-4/short-guide-4
May I suggest the following book:
http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/21508990
May I suggest that there's many official records from the convict era that were lost in the 1870s, and these may well include many of the pre 1826 applications to marry that required the Governor's approval.
Cheers, JM
EDIT TO ADD : That then leaves the problem of who was the Charles Fluty who did marry Mary Griggs in 1818 in Sydney? That at this point is unknown, but proves that there were at least 2 adult Charles Fluertys in the Colony of New South Wales (which included Van Diemens Land) in 1818.
-
I believe the reason for thinking that Charles F. went to Tasmania on the Kangaroo is because of this reference in the Col. Sec.'s Papers:
FLAHATA, Charles
Prisoner to Van Diemen's Land as crew, "Kangaroo"
29 March 1816
Request that Flahata, a prisoner employed on "Kangaroo", be paid wages (Reel 6045; 4/1734 p.46)
2 Apr 1816
Re victualling of on board "Kangaroo" (Reel 6045; 4/1734 pp.52-3)
1/2 April 1816
Re prisoners being landed and delivered to Hutchinson; appears as Flhutte (Reel 6004; 4/3494 pp.424, 429)
http://colsec.records.nsw.gov.au/indexes/colsec/
I am still trying to locate the first two documents referenced (the subscription site only indexes some of the documents, which of course makes the others impossible to find as they have run all the microfilm images together), however the others are not clear as to how long this person had been onboard the Kangaroo and possibly had come to Sydney from Tasmania.
The last document states that he should not be serving as crew onboard the Kangaroo as "it is improper that Prisoners of the Crown, more properly called convicts ;D should be employed in a service whereby they might easily effect their escape...."
The smiley face is mine, I don't think the Col. Sec. had a sense of humour.
Debra :)
-
STRUTH :o between 13.44 and 13.57 yesterday KEINNAME or Freckly or whatever TYPED about 13,000 words :o That's like 1,000 words a minute....phew and here's me at about 20wpm. I lose :'( :'( :'(
;) Neil ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
20 wpm? Well you would beat me ;D
Debra :)
-
Also just mentioning that many people confuse "The Downs" with Co. Down in Ireland. Knowledge of the geographical terminology of the times comes with experience.
Debra :)
-
Hi there Sayonara,
Yes, 1000 words a minute seems to be impossible. Perhaps you typed up on a word document and then you copy pasted the word document?
The book I cited is from the editorship of a former NSW BDM chap, and is well regarded.
Hi there Neil,
Yes, Struth is the word of the day around here too. My first occupation was as a typiste (note the 'e') and while I was a tad more than 20 wpm, I was NOT more than 110 wpm. Even with the modern puter keyboard, (ie lack of need to remove right hand to 'return the carriage manually) I am still no more than around 120 wpm.
Hi there Debra,
I will defer to your VDL knowledge of those Col Sec papers. But I agree, there's quite a few that the commercial website has NOT uploaded. And I agree about "The Downs" too. ;D ;D (RChat smileys of course)
Cheers, JM
-
Smiley's only.... ;D no rolling eyes ::) thank you.....
Anonymous ;)
-
I have found those two documents:
29 March 1816
Request that Flahata, a prisoner employed on "Kangaroo", be paid wages (Reel 6045; 4/1734 p.46)
The name on this document is clearly Chas. FLHUTTE, AB, Prisoner for Life. He served under the command of JEFFREYS (I think - the signature is hard to read), by order of Lieut. Governor DAVEY
from the 1st or 7th October 1814.
A direct link for anyone who has access
http://www.rootschat.com/links/0v7c/
2 Apr 1816
Re victualling of on board "Kangaroo" (Reel 6045; 4/1734 pp.52-3)
This is furthur hoo ha about whether or not JEFFREYS was given permission to employ a prisoner as crew. He enclosed a copy of the order from the Lieut. Governor dated 1814.
A direct link for anyone who has access
http://www.rootschat.com/links/0v7d/
From minimal research, it appears that after the Kangaroo arrived in the Colony in January 1814 they moved back and forth between Sydny, Norfolk Island and Tasmania as well as at least one trip to Ceylon in 1816 where they brought back convicts from Colombo.
May I suggest that there's many official records from the convict era that were lost in the 1870s, and these may well include many of the pre 1826 applications to marry that required the Governor's approval.
Cheers, JM
As far as I am aware, the only documents relating to permission to marry in that early period will be found amongst the Col. Sec.'s Papers, where they survive. As JM said, many official records have been lost. From the State Archives re Permission to Marry Registers: "The first permission to marry recorded in these registers was granted on 6 January 1826, and the first refusal on 9 June 1826."
Has anyone looked at the marriage entry in the Church register to see if it provides any extra info on the groom? The marriage took place on 31 March 1816, and the Kangaroo was in Sydney harbour on 16 March and still there on 30 March.
Debra :)
-
Yes, not only can I type at 13,000 words a minute, but I can also instantly transcribe historical documents. ROFLMAO ;D
While researching this topic I had looked for alternative spelling of Fluerty in the Colonial Secretary’s Index and had completely missed "Flahata". :-\ Thanks Dundee for the references – they sure explain a lot.
So Charles was definitely in Sydney in March 1816. This would have allowed him to marry Mary Griggs in Sydney on 21 Mar 1816.
(I am assuming that the 1818 on the BDM NSW index is a transcription error.)
(Yes this is the contrary position to my earlier post as the evidence that Dundee has posted speaks for itself. My previous statement about 2 Charles Fluertys in 1818 was also incorrect.)
It is also true as others have already said that not all convict permissions to marry have survived. All that is really missing was Mary’s name on the passenger’s list of the “Kangaroo” back to Hobart but this may have been because she was the wife of a crew-member, or she may have travelled to Hobart on a different ship.
Re: 1/2 April 1816 - Re prisoners being landed and delivered to Hutchinson; appears as Flhutte (Reel 6004; 4/3494 pp.424, 429)
* The letter numbered 424 of 1 April 1816 says in part that Charles Flhutte(sic) had been allowed to work on the “Kangaroo” from “the Derwent (that is Hobart) by permission of His Honor Lt Govn Davey”.
and as Dundee said
"it is improper that Prisoners of the Crown, more properly called convicts ;D should be employed in a service whereby they might easily effect their escape...."
* The letter numbered 429 of 2 April says in part “No question was made in Regard to Flhutte or Flahatu having been received by You in Compliance with the Orders of Lieut. Govn. Davey at Hobart Town.”
By employing Charles on the “Kangaroo” they were taking advantage of his skills as a sailor from his former life in the British Navy. (We also know that he was on the whaling ship in 1832. Mmm, I wonder if he was the coxswain at Port Arthur in 1841? This would make sense despite his age, and would leave the death in 1835 to possibly be of his son.)
So Charles was indeed on the “Kangaroo” from Sydney to Hobart in April 1816 (when he was landed to serve in that capacity no longer), but even more so that he had first joined the crew of the “Kangaroo” in Hobart. I wonder when he first joined the crew? The only time could have been August 1814 when the Kangaroo was last in Hobart.
From the Colonial Secretary’s Index the following is revealed for the “Kangaroo”:
1814 Aug – Hobart (Gee whiz, 1 of my children’s ancestors, a soldier, was on the ship then – he would have met Charles!)
1815 Feb – Sydney (via Launceston)
1815 c.Jul to 1816 Feb – voyage to and from Ceylon
1816 Feb – Sydney
1816 Mar – Newcastle
1816 Mar – Sydney
1816 Apr – Hobart
http://colsec.records.nsw.gov.au/indexes/colsec/k/F30c_ka-ke-01.htm#P402_15862
So with the date of the marriage of Mary Griggs to Charles Fluty as 21 Mar 1816 in Sydney at St Phillips Church was at a time when indeed the “Kangaroo” was in Sydney after its return from Newcastle. Charles would have had opportunity to meet Mary Griggs between Feb and c.Jul 1815, and also visit with her for a short time in February 1816, and of course in the short time in March 1816 in which they got married.
May I simply note that during the Governorship of Lachlan Macquarie, the parish registers for St Phillips Church, Sydney Town include TRANSMITTED records of baptisms, burials and marriages conducted ELSEWHERE in New South Wales, and by clergy who were not Anglicans.
majm are you sure of this? My understanding was that the parish register only contained the births deaths and marriage for that parish, which in this case was the Anglican parish of St Phillips, and only for services performed under the rites of the Church of England. Also in my understanding there were no changes to this during the time of Macquarie. In fact none of the very good and useful references that you quoted from the NSW state archives substantiate what you have said. I would have to disagree with the proposal that a 1818 (or 1816) marriage could be recorded in the parish register for St Phillips where the marriage was celebrated by a clergyman who was NOT an Anglican, and/ or where the marriage had been celebrated in VDL.
-
A direct link for anyone who has access
http://www.rootschat.com/links/0v7c/
Dundee, do you think that the AB against Charles name on the above document means that they employed him on the ship as an able-seaman?
-
Yes, the letter mentions their "quality", so I think AB would be Able Seaman.
FamilySearch says the marriage was in 1816 https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XTCK-N98
What a name to try to research ::) On the 1820 muster he was FLAGHUTE.
Debra :)
-
Hi
http://www.records.nsw.gov.au/state-archives/guides-and-finding-aids/short-guide-5/short-guide-5 Mary Griggs application to marry is NOT listed on the Index to the abstract of all licences for marriage granted to free persons 17 March 1813-26 Dec 1827. So, if it was Charles FLHUTTE who married Mary Ann GRIGGS, then likely only ONE chap, and not two by that name in the then territory of NSW.
Please accept my apology if I am duplicating any info already posted, but I noticed the following (while looking for the marriage ….. and from the red post, It has been found HURRAY ;D my OH says the book say 1816 too )
Baptism of Mary Ann Griggs with father as John Hunt LUCAS and mother as Sarah GRIGGS. Mary Ann born 28 March 1798, and Baptised 22 April 1798.
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XTCR-54Y
I asked my OH to look through the book by Mr Donohue . (I cited it earlier) …. In that book the surname is transcribed as FLAHARTY.
My OH assures me that the book shows that Charles FLAHARTY ex the Indefatigible married Mary Ann GRIGGS, and that there’s mention of St Philips, Sydney. So I am not sure how the surname would be transcribed for the familysearch records at all, but I do know that most of those Early Church Records at St Philips are transcribed on the familysearch.org website.
Cheers, JM
-
majm are you sure of this? My understanding was that the parish register only contained the births deaths and marriage for that parish, which in this case was the Anglican parish of St Phillips, and only for services performed under the rites of the Church of England. Also in my understanding there were no changes to this during the time of Macquarie. In fact none of the very good and useful references that you quoted from the NSW state archives substantiate what you have said. I would have to disagree with the proposal that a 1818 (or 1816) marriage could be recorded in the parish register for St Phillips where the marriage was celebrated by a clergyman who was NOT an Anglican, and/ or where the marriage had been celebrated in VDL.
Yes, quite sure. You will note that Gov Macquarie required all clergy to transmit records to the NSW Chaplains. The General Orders were published in the Sydney Gazette which is digitised at Trove. My statement re the records that St Philips holds is something that I have "known" basically ALL my life. However, it is one of those lesser known items within family history circles. I am pleased to note that the book I cited notes the fact that St Philips register is not just for Anglican rites. May I commend the several books by Mr Donohue to you.
Cheers, JM
-
majm are you sure of this? My understanding was that the parish register only contained the births deaths and marriage for that parish, which in this case was the Anglican parish of St Phillips, and only for services performed under the rites of the Church of England. Also in my understanding there were no changes to this during the time of Macquarie. In fact none of the very good and useful references that you quoted from the NSW state archives substantiate what you have said. I would have to disagree with the proposal that a 1818 (or 1816) marriage could be recorded in the parish register for St Phillips where the marriage was celebrated by a clergyman who was NOT an Anglican, and/ or where the marriage had been celebrated in VDL.
Yes, quite sure. You will note that Gov Macquarie required all clergy to transmit records to the NSW Chaplains. The General Orders were published in the Sydney Gazette which is digitised at Trove. My statement re the records that St Philips holds is something that I have "known" basically ALL my life. However, it is one of those lesser known items within family history circles. I am pleased to note that the book I cited notes the fact that St Philips register is not just for Anglican rites. May I commend the several books by Mr Donohue to you.
JM, would you like me to check my cousin JHD's books for you?
-
Yes Please Merlin
That's a very kind offer.
Cheers, JM
-
http://trove.nla.gov.au/people/604958?c=people
-
My OH assures me the following is in Mr Donohue’s book “The Catholics of NSW 1788-1820”
“It is most misleading for a researcher to believe that the Church of England records exclude Catholics. It does not. …. Almost a quarter of the early Catholics recorded their baptismal and marriage events in the early Church of England records. It should be remembered that those registers were never exclusive to the Church of England:”
I WILL SEND PM TO MERLIN thanking Merlin for the kind offer and asking for confirmation of my transcription of my OH’s words over the copper wires from home in NSW to here in the NT.
May I note that some of my forebears worked for the NSW Registrar Generals Office. May I note that Mr Donohue also worked for the Reg Gen. I am not related to Mr Donohue.
Cheers, JM
-
May I note that several of my direct lines include forebears who arrived in NSW before Gov Bligh arrived. Some were part of garrison forces. Some were free settlers, and only a very few were transported under a sentence of a civil court.
May I note that my interest in family history stems way way back, back to the late 1950s, when genealogy was simply not one of the top of the pops hobbies. But I could always rely on the rellies ... particularly the generation older than me to give me clues about my favourite question "who am I, where did I come from, who do I take after" etc ;D ) and then to allow me to cross examine them and to "find the papers to prove it" ... I haunted the ML in Sydney the doorman knew me quite well "Hello Miss ..... back again I see, give my regards to your Grandmother" ...
So may I note that Sayonara's question of me (am I sure) and my response (yes quite sure) is simply a fair exchange of views and is not to be mis-construed.
Cheers, JM...
-
My OH assures me the following is in Mr Donohue’s book “The Catholics of NSW 1788-1820”
“It is most misleading for a researcher to believe that the Church of England records exclude Catholics. It does not. …. Almost a quarter of the early Catholics recorded their baptismal and marriage events in the early Church of England records. It should be remembered that those registers were never exclusive to the Church of England:”
I WILL SEND PM TO MERLIN thanking Merlin for the kind offer and asking for confirmation of my transcription of my OH’s words over the copper wires from home in NSW to here in the NT.
May I note that some of my forebears worked for the NSW Registrar Generals Office. May I note that Mr Donohue also worked for the Reg Gen. I am not related to Mr Donohue.
I can confirm that the above is written in the book :)
-
Thank you Merlin,
Cheers, JM (off now to sort out some real life thingys for a family member who is ill)
-
So may I note that KEINNAME's question of me (am I sure) and my response (yes quite sure) is simply a fair exchange of views and is not to be mis-construed.
Cheers, JM...
I am dumbfounded that the above clarification needed to be made. I thought it was just understood.
Please understand my next post below in the same vein - a fair exchange of views, nothing more, nothing less.
-
I know I am going to get cannon balls fired in my direction for this one, but here goes anyway.
Just because Mr Donohue wrote it in his book, does not make it so.
First for the reference to Gov Macquarie required all clergy to transmit records to the NSW Chaplains, the General Orders published in the Sydney Gazette and digitised at Trove. I cannot find the order, and I have searched in every way that I can think of. Can someone else please find them and post a link? As I would love to read them (assuming that the order does actually exist).
Now to the history of the Catholic faith in early NSW. It Is well documented on this web-page of the State Library of NSW:
http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/discover_collections/history_nation/religion/catholics/
Let’s not let Mr Donohue, or anyone else, rewrite history. And I am afraid that “something that I have "known" basically ALL my life” just does not cut it.
In 1788 when the 1st fleet landed the only sanctioned denomination was the CofE.
For the first 20 years (1788-1808) all Catholics were expected to undertake their baptisms, marriages and funerals in the CofE tradition, and all Catholic convicts were expected to attend CofE services. The only exceptions during this time were:
(1) During the time that Fr James Dixon was in the colony. Even though he arrived as a convict in January 1800 the first Mass was not held until 15 May 1803. With the Castle Hill uprising in 1804* Government approval for the public Mass was withdrawn as not only was Governor King suspicious that Dixon’s services allowed Irish convicts to plot against the government, but they did actually do so. Dixon continued to marry and baptise Catholics in private. He returned to Ireland in 1808. Catholics could now meet for prayers, but no Mass, and no Catholic performed baptisms or marriages.
(2) In 1819 when the French ship “Uranie” arrived in Port Jackson. Local Catholics rushed to the Catholic priest aboard the ship to have Catholic marriages and baptisms performed.
[* something that I have previously studied in a great detail – don’t believe me? Read my article about William Hancy on Familypedia, it is still the featured article more than 6 months after I wrote it http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Family_History_and_Genealogy_Wiki ]
Governor Macquarie arrived in the colony of NSW between the time of (1) & (2) above. Macquarie stepped off the boat on 1 Jan 1810 when there was no Catholic priest in the colony. He was relieved as Governor on 1 Dec 1821. The only time that there was a Catholic priest in the Colony during the time of Gov Macquarie was while the “Uranie” was in port, and from 1820 when Fr Phillip Connolly and Fr John Joseph Therry arrived.
Gov Macquarie in a letter dated 14 Oct 1820 authorised Fr Phillip Connolly and Fr John Joseph Therry to “Perform “ their “Clerical Duties in New South Wales and Van Dieman’s Land” with “due Regard to the Laws of the Mother Country”. This included the performance of Catholic marriages, even though at that time in “the Mother Country” only marriages performed in CofE rites were legal (in other words Catholic marriages performed in England at that time were not Marriages recognised under the law). They were required to transmit applications for marriages, where required, in the same manner as that of the ministers of the CofE church. They were to keep a register of the marriages (a separate register to any of the CofE church) that could be inspected; and make quarterly return of said marriages to the Governor. No Catholic marriages were to be performed unless both bride and groom were Catholic.
Fr Connolly moved in Hobart in 1821, and Fr Therry remained in Sydney until his death after 44 years.
There was never any need for Gov Macquarie to require “all clergy to transmit records to the NSW Chaplains” until October 1820, and then instead he required that the Catholic clergy to remit returns directly to himself, just as the CofE clergy already did.
(more than 5500 characters so continued in next post)
-
(continued from previous post)
It is most misleading for a researcher to believe that the Church of England records exclude Catholics. It does not. …. Almost a quarter of the early Catholics recorded their baptismal and marriage events in the early Church of England records.
What then with Mr Donohue’s statement above? When it is first understood that until 1820 the only baptism and marriages under Catholic Rites occurred during 1804-1808, and very briefly in 1819, then it is indeed true that the early Church of England records did not exclude Catholics. They did not exclude Catholics as the only way to have a baptism or marriage performed was under the Cof E rites by a CofE minister. They were not “their baptismal and marriage events” but CofE ones. As concerns marriages, at the time this was no different to marriages in England where for Catholics since 1753 (until 1849) the only legally recognised marriage was a CofE one, and all Catholics (and those of other faiths as well) had to undertake a CofE marriage ceremony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753
In 1820 Catholic ceremonies received official approval in NSW. From 1820 in NSW Catholic records were kept for Catholic baptism and marriage services, but not all have survived. These records for the Catholic rites, however, were Catholic records and not records that ever became part of the registers that were kept by the Church of England.
It should be remembered that those registers were never exclusive to the Church of England.
What then of Mr Donohue’s statement above? I am sorry, but I would have to disagree. Show me the historical proof and I will change my mind.
-
majm are you sure of this? My understanding was that the parish register only contained the births deaths and marriage for that parish, which in this case was the Anglican parish of St Phillips, and only for services performed under the rites of the Church of England. Also in my understanding there were no changes to this during the time of Macquarie. In fact none of the very good and useful references that you quoted from the NSW state archives substantiate what you have said. I would have to disagree with the proposal that a 1818 (or 1816) marriage could be recorded in the parish register for St Phillips where the marriage was celebrated by a clergyman who was NOT an Anglican, and/ or where the marriage had been celebrated in VDL.
Yes, quite sure. You will note that Gov Macquarie required all clergy to transmit records to the NSW Chaplains. The General Orders were published in the Sydney Gazette which is digitised at Trove. My statement re the records that St Philips holds is something that I have "known" basically ALL my life. However, it is one of those lesser known items within family history circles. I am pleased to note that the book I cited notes the fact that St Philips register is not just for Anglican rites. May I commend the several books by Mr Donohue to you.
Cheers, JM
" It being essentially necessary that regular Returns should be transmitted annually to England of the Exact state of the Population of the Colony, and that regular Accounts for this Purpose should be kept in the different districts and Parishes throughout the whole of the territory, of all Births and Deaths. His Excellency the Governor accordingly directs that exact and correct registers shall in future be kept by the several Chaplains … of all Births and Deaths that may occur in their respective Parishes or Districts, transmitting regular Quarterly Returns thereof to the Principal Chaplain at Parramatta, from which he will make up a general one to be laid before the Governor …"
http://www.records.nsw.gov.au/state-archives/guides-and-finding-aids/short-guide-2/short-guide-2
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/628072 Sydney Gazette 22 Sept 1810.
" It being essentially, necessary that regular Returns should be transmitted annually to England of the exact State of the Population of the Colony ; and that regular Accounts for this purpose should be kept in the different Districts and Parishes throughout the whole of the Territory, of all Births and Deaths, His Excellency the Governor accordingly directs, that exact and correct Registers shall in future be kept by the several Chaplains, and by the Magistrates or Commandants (where there are no Chaplains), of all Births and Deaths that may occur in their respective Parishes or Districts ; transmitting regular Quarterly Returns thereof to the Principal Chaplain at Parramatta ; from which he will make up a general one, to be laid before the Governor"
Sayonara wrote " I know I am going to get cannon balls fired in my direction for this one, but here goes anyway.
Just because Mr Donohue wrote it in his book, does not make it so.
First for the reference to Gov Macquarie required all clergy to transmit records to the NSW Chaplains, the General Orders published in the Sydney Gazette and digitised at Trove. I cannot find the order, and I have searched in every way that I can think of. Can someone else please find them and post a link? As I would love to read them (assuming that the order does actually exist). "
...... "As concerns marriages, at the time this was no different to marriages in England where for Catholics since 1753 (until 1849) the only legally recognised marriage was a CofE one, and all Catholics (and those of other faiths as well) had to undertake a CofE marriage ceremony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1753"
May I gently suggest that the 1753 ACT was NOT statute law in the Colonies. The C of E was NOT the "Established Church" in NSW and in fact there were other denominations transmitting records to the NSW Chaplains. I confirm that Rev Cowper received transmitted records from the Wesleyan Congregations and that these are recorded in the St Philips registers, particularly Baptisms/Christenings circa 1815, 1816, 1817. Some of my forebears Wesleyan services among those years.... The images of these are at the NSW SL. Rev Cowper's hand : "transmitted record from the Wesleyans"
Cheers, JM
-
I confirm that Rev Cowper received transmitted records from the Wesleyan Congregations and that these are recorded in the St Philips registers, particularly Baptisms/Christenings circa 1815, 1816, 1817. Some of my forebears Wesleyan services among those years....The images of these are at the NSW SL. Rev Cowper's hand : "transmitted record from the Wesleyans"
I will humbly bow to your expertise in this area majm. :) And please note that this is genuine and contains NO hint of sarcasm, I don't want anyone to misconsrue. I am so glad that you have provided this example.
My last posts, however, have been about the Catholics, and Mr Donohue's comments about the Catholics. There were no Catholic Chaplains in NSW in 1810, and the references that you have provided, although extremely illuminating, do not apply to the Catholics for whom regulations were not passed until the arrival of Therry and Connolly in 1820 - and Therry and Connolly had to submit their quarterly returns direct to the Governor.
May I gently suggest that the 1753 ACT was NOT statute law in the Colonies.
I NEVER suggested that it was.
-
So are we all related or are you all just researchers?
-
Hi Jacqui_2326,
Welcome to Rootschat :)
Rootschat is free family history forum. Rootschatters love helping and enjoy a challenge, even if it is not our personal family history. Anyone can research their own family history with the generous assistance free from other Rootschatters, all their expertise and many resources prove invaluable. Hopefully the many things one learns can also help others along the way. Having new unbiasded perspectives, fresh eyes, local knowledge and resources is of great help in family history. Rootschatters have been known to demolish many 'brick walls'. Hope you join in and find Rootschat rewarding and fun.
Cheers :)
cupoflife
-
I’ve just discovered that Charles is my 4th great grandfather but I don’t know anything about him. Colourful life he lived!