Mary Ann Gibbs - nee Irving/Irwin/Evering - South Aust.

[sparrett]

Not particularly helpful probably, but I do see IRWIN in the enlarged snip from Voltaire.
I note the writer used an unusual form for lower case r.

It can be seen in HOWARD above and JEFFREY below, and also in the given name Mary.

Sue

[aus*jen]

Cando,  You have added to your post since I first read it.  I believe that the 2 names from the passenger list may be 2 different passengers.  The passenger you believe to be JARVIS does
have an 'IS' suffix, the rest of the name in indecipherable to me.  This Mary is from Tyrone.

  The second Mary, as stated in a previous post is listed on page 8  on the Certificate of Embarkation document.  This name, I believe has an 'IN' suffix, the rest of the name is obscure. There is no country of origin listed with this second Mary.

I will post the name of the Mary from the Embarkation document onto the deciphering board
for some opinions.  I am looking for unbiased opinions so will not post any further information.

If the majority of opinions do not support the name/names I am looking for I will accept that with a good grace and move on.  However, after further research and contact with other Gibbs researchers there is mounting evidence that Mary Irving/Irwin/Evering did arrive in Adelaide on the Trafalgar on 28th June, 1854.

 regards,
 Jen.

[aus*jen]

   Your comment is very helpful and welcome Sparrett, that is of course the name I am hoping
   for.

Regards,
Jen.

[cando]

Deleted as my research is not required by the OP.

Cando

[aus*jen]

Cando,  I have already explained to you that I am not providing ANY information on the
           snip of the name of interest.  I am merely interested in how others on the
           deciphering board see the name as it is.    They do not need passenger lists
           to guide them, it will be their own personal interpretation of what they see.  We are all
           free to conduct our search in our own way, it is not appropriate for other Rchatters to
           dictate what that way should be.  I asked for help with immigration and you have   
           given it freely and I appreciate that.  However there is no harm in asking others their
           opinion on a name I consider to be of interest.  That is all it is.  The need to always be
           right is not a compelling one for me, if I'm wrong I'm always happy to admit it.  At
           present I am not convinced that the 2 Mary's are the same person, the surname does
           not look the same, one ends in 'is' and one ends in 'in'. 
                   

           As to the age of Mary, that is arbitrary.  Over the years I have encountered countless
           records where the ages are incorrect or deliberately misquoted.  My gr.grandmother,
           from this Gibbs family underestimated her age by 7 years,  her quoted ages on 5
           certificates were incorrect.   In the absence of a birth certificate for Mary Gibbs we do not
           know if her stated age of 19 on her marriage cert. was correct so we have no premise to
           refute the age of the 2 Mary passengers.  From memory one was 20 and one was 21.
           Correct me if I'm wrong.

           Thankyou for all your time and effort you have given to my query.

           Added:  Checked the passenger list again after I posted the above from memory, I was
                       mistaken, the age of both Mary passengers was 21.

[cando]

I have deleted my last two posts as it doesn't appear to fit with your desire to find your ancestor. 

Cando

[aus*jen]

Replies 21 and 23 - you would be incorrect in those assumptions Cando.  It is your prerogative to remove your posts but in so doing you have deprived others of the benefit of your research in the future.  I had already saved your replies for future reference.

Regards,
Jen.

[majm]

Hi there aus*jen

I have transcribed many passenger lists over many years.  I am aware that shipping arriving into NSW (so not South Australia) often lodged two or more passenger lists from the same era as your SA enquiry.   From memory, at least one was in the mess order, ie in the order of groups who messed together, while the other may have been in the order of tickets issued/cabin class, second class, etc down to steerage.  I think where there was a third list, it was in surname order.

I am somewhat confused by your comment about seeking an unbiased view.  If this were my family, I agree that it would be sensible to consider submitting to the decipher board, but the views I would be seeking would be those of RChatters with a deep knowledge of and experience with South Australian passenger list transcriptions, so I would be seeking a disinterested view.   

As I have no real experience in transcribing SA passenger lists, but I believe I am competent in transcribing longhand from that era, I would consider I could offer an unbiased view.  However, clearly I cannot offer a disinterested view as I do not have a deep knowledge of how the SA passenger lists were compiled or transcribed.

ADD
Re the need to be always right ...  I agree, when researching our own family history each of us is responsible for setting our own standards of proof to work towards.  BUT ... surely when posting on the open forum that is RChat, it is also just as important to recognise that the search for evidence in official/disinterested records is paramount, and so rather than seek out a particular primary source record it is better to seek out several primary records to compare and validate the information to give confidence to the quest so that when you are ready to share your family history research with others, they can appreciate the process underlying your validated research?

JM

[aus*jen]

Hi JM, thankyou for your interest and very pertinent comments.  When I used the term 'unbiased'
I meant an opinion that was not influenced by any information that may suggest what the name of interest could be.  I was seeking an opinion based on observation alone by those who were confident in transcribing longhand from that era.  I had not considered your definition of a 'disinterested' opinion, you make a good point.

I am aware that you are competent in translating longhand from that era and I accept your offer of an unbiased view.  The name from the passenger list which is of interest has been posted on this thread by Voltaire.    The second name from the passenger list cited by Cando as the same passenger has been removed by that poster.

Regarding your added comments, I agree that the search for evidence in official records is paramount and that consulting several primary records to validate information is optimum.
To this end I have contacted the family history section of the State Library of S.A. to request a copy of the original marriage record of Mary Gibbs from their records of Holy Trinity church, Adelaide.  It is not known if Mary Gibbs was literate but if she signed the marriage record there would be another example of her name for comparison.

Regards,
Jen.