Dowdy / Mcartney / Thurston in Victoria / South Australia

[majm]

This woman appears on both Assisted and Unassisted listings.
They are the same person both times.
I have seen this double listing frequently and perhaps someone else can explain it

I have but TWO ancestors who arrive via Victorian Ports.  They are among the 'newest' of my migrating ancestors, and they arrived in the mid 1850s, .... (gold fever, two illiterate brothers, born in the 1840s,).   They too are listed on both indexes.   So I too would be interested to learn the explanation for the double listing.

Cheers,  JM   

[judb]

This is what I found on the records at the NLA

Mary A THURSTON, 18 arr MAR 1857 per  JAMES FERNIE, from a  British port.
Fiche 121, p008 shows:
THURSTON, Mary A, age (listed in column for single women) is difficult to read - could be 14, 15 or 18 with the units figure being faintly overwritten so that it looks to me definitely that the record shows in her teens, and 18 seems more likely.  Occupation is listed as "Cook" and she is from England.  Unfortunately this record only shows whether the person is English, Scotch or Irish, so no locality information.

This one from the Disposal List (Book 11, p338)
THURSTON, Mary Ann, Cook,
Native place: Suffolk
Curch of England, can read and write, age 28 (clearly written)
Disposed to: Mr (perhaps Mrs?) Stephens, Prahran on the 17th; wage: 35 (presumably pounds).  The wage is higher than that for the women listed as General Servants.

Now for the women on the Theresa.

From Bk 13A, p 251, per ship Theresa
MCCartney, Hester B, 18, housemaid,
Employer: Mrs J Franklin, 43 Collins St West, Wages 12 (pound)

From Bk 13A, p 252, per ship Theresa  (Cando has already listed this)
THURSTON, Mary Ann, 22, housemaid
Employer: Mrs Perks, Parsonage Richmond, Wages 20 pound

From Book  14 p265
THURSTON, Mary Ann, housemaid, 24
Native County; London, Church of England, can read and write
Employer: Mrs Perks, Parsonage Richmond, Wages 20 pounds

MCARTHY, Esther B, housemaid,  (I am sure this is the same person as Hester MCCARTNEY))
Native County; London, Church of England, can read and write,
Employer: Mrs  Franklin, 43 Collins St West, Wages 12 (pound)

The woman listed next, under Esther MCCARTHY is Euphemia McDONALD from Perth Scotland and is also employed by Mrs Franklin.

So we are no further forward, except that we now have two possible Mary A THURSTONs    However, the one who arrived in 1857 has a 'native place' of Suffolk which does not match any of the information for the second Mary Ann.  There is no record to show whether H/ester B MCARTNEY/MCCARTHY knew Mary Ann THURSTON but surely the co-incidence of them both marrying in Beechworth is of some importance.

Judith

[judb]

Re listings on both Assisted and Unassisted Records - the records for Mary A THURSTON, 18 arr MAR 1857 per  JAMES FERNIE, from a  British port are interesting.

The first listing that I looked at was from the Unassisted records.
With regard to this listing being for "Unassisted Passengers" there is a comment at end of the passenger list for the James Fernie that "The passengers, James Fernie, being Government immigrants are exempt from the payment  of passenger rate."   There is also a comment from the ship's master "...............list are passengers within the meaning of the act of the governor and the Legislative Council of Victoria passed in the eighteenth? year of her present majesty's reign, entitled"  This statement is blotted so can't read the bit where I have put dots.

A statement with the same wording is attached to a passenger list for the Gypsy Bride (arriving at about the same date) so it seems that an immigrant is not always an immigrant which goes some way to explaining the contradictory recording on Assited and Unassisted lists.  This list of passengers is compiled before leaving and I hazard a guess that the legal meaning of 'passenger may have been different between UK an\d the Colony of Victoria.

There is also a handwritten note on the James Fernie list stating that names and descriptions of the passengers "are also listed in the register of Assisted Immigrants". 

Judith

[sparrett]

That,s terrific information, Judith.
A Trove search "Perks parsonage Richmond" turns up advertisements in the Argus for staff at the Parsonage from as early as 1863.
I am on the tablet at the moment and it won,t download the full image, but others may see something of interest about Perks.
Sue

[sparrett]

http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/152480712?q=%22Rev+Perks%22&l-availability=y&c=picture&versionId=166190623
Here is picture of Rev  Perks.

There I also a letter from with the Parsonage as its address.

Not of great relevance to our search, but I think interesting just the same.
Sue

[mhetfield]

Hi all

Thank you Judith that is great work thank you for taking your time to do all that,

I have been talking to a lot of people with Mary Thurston they do all believe that it is the same person but no one can tell me that if Mary's last name is Thurston why did she use McCartney as her last name or as her mothers name,

there must be more to this story

[sparrett]

 

Hi all

Thank you Judith that is great work thank you for taking your time to do all that,

I have been talking to a lot of people with Mary Thurston they do all believe that it is the same person but no one can tell me that if Mary's last name is Thurston why did she use McCartney as her last name or as her mothers name,

there must be more to this story

Many on this thread have put forward very plausible theories as to why this happened.

Have you read them?

I doubt you will find more on public record.

Sue

[cando]

I think you need to read ALL the thread again.  McCARTNEY was the marriage registration before Mary's in the register and there has been some confusion when entering Mary's details. Thank goodness the South Australian registrar was more diligent.  Illiteracy obviously played a part.

Genealogy is not an exact science and I think you need to approach this research with a bit of commonsense.

You are reading far too much into it.  A number of other family history researchers have agreed that the Victorian registrations are inaccurate.

You have not managed to decipher the note in the margin of the 1864 marriage.  This may be an important clue.

Her mother's name was KNIGHTS.

Cando

[mhetfield]

thank you to everyone who has tried to help.

Thanks again Judith I do appreciate the help and the other like minded people who have commented on my post i was just curious as to why the different names being used i can not just assume that they were all clerical errors, assumptions are how mistakes are made

It turn out a lovely lady emailed me some documents today explaining why Mary choose to use the different names.