Right,
1. Turning off notifications for a particular thread does NOT mean any RChatter has quit. It simply means that the RChatter has turned off the notifications feature, thus avoiding receiving email alerts to newer posts.
2. I see there’s been a further modification made by our OP to her reply so that the word ‘Grannie’ no longer appears in its original place. Is there a valid reason for removing it? Probably not, for the OP does acknowledge using it, albeit as a ‘generic’ term. I am quite sure in its original place it was not used as a generic term, but rather as a term of endearment. One of my third cousins is likely a direct descendant of Ellen who married Thomas in 1891. My third cousin advises me that her elderly relatives referred to Ellen as Grandmother, and that to the best of her knowledge ‘Grannie’ is not a popular word used in the family. I concur, and note that the spelling ‘ie’ is not the usual spelling found for ‘Granny’ within communities in NSW in the early to mid 20th Century. I also note that I have not provided any means for anyone to readily validate this statement. I am not in the habit of providing identifying information about living people. It is up to them to decide IF they want to make contact, and I note they are under no obligation to so do.
3. In respect to researching convictism in Western Australia – may I again request that our OP please give serious consideration to setting aside Hughes book The Fatal Shore. He was not writing about Western Australian convictism. It would be sensible if you considered re-reading his introduction. In the same way that it is poor research to say rely in how convictism operated in the British Colonies of North America in the 1700s or earlier, in order to understand the context of WA convictism in the 1860s, so it is fair to say that it is poor research to rely on The Fatal Shore for WA convictism in the 1860s for it clearly refers to New South Wales and Van Diemens Land convictism in the late 1700s and into the early decades of the 1800s.
4. One of the many benefits that RChat provides for anyone interested in family history is that among its rules are protections for living people. And that feature in turn allows many benefits including a complementary benefit – that of public access to these threads without the need to even log on or sign in or subscribe. It is only when the reader wants to contribute that the reader needs to formally choose to announce their presence. And that benefit in turn is complemented with the use of avatar names. I mention these particular complementary benefits because I notice that this thread has now been read more than 1300 times, and I suspect that some of those occasions are by relatives of my third cousin, as I am advised that they are shocked by the lack of quality to the research for Ellen and Thomas’ origins. I think it is likely that that they will continue to listen to the local community leaders including police, who regularly advise community groups for senior citizens to be alert to people claiming to be related or to have common dead relatives when it turns out that they may be scamming them or otherwise being mischievous . I will continue to leave notifications turned off on this thread. I thank those who have kindly sent PMs to me recently, and I hope I have replied to all the PMs.
There’s no reason to be deterred from family history research, but there’s every reason to strive to be mindful of the living and their lawful expectation to privacy of the individual, when seeking to make contact with people who are already aware of their NSW heritage. To me, RChat is not here to help people make contact with long lost living relatives, as there are other organisations that concentrate on that. Here’s the HOW TO thread for the Australia Board:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=368728.0 JM
