Author Topic: Hulk ship..conjugal rights or hanky panky?  (Read 372 times)

Offline Leashl

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
Hulk ship..conjugal rights or hanky panky?
« on: Saturday 03 February 18 04:43 GMT (UK) »
So my ancestor was sentenced to 10 years transportation on the hulk Stirling Castle in Devonport, 1838. The child born 1839 is feasible, as is the one born 1849....but the one born 1844? In 1851 Mum is with a new spouse, who coincidentally was in the same lodging house in 1841. So is there any chance of a conjugal visit or do I assume the Father was the new spouse? Thanks in advance.
Hutchinson - Sussex; Underwood - Marylebone; Ensor - Marylebone; Bemmer - Middlesex/Prussia; Groocock - Husbands Bosworth; Hale - Stanstead Abbotss/Brentford; Price - Middlesex;

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Billyblue

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,855
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Hulk ship..conjugal rights or hanky panky?
« Reply #1 on: Saturday 03 February 18 05:43 GMT (UK) »
It probably depends on
a) where was he deported to?
b) where were the children born?

On the face of it, conjugal visits unlikely.
If the husband was sent to Australia, remember that if they had not been able to return within 7 years, the marriage was considered over and either party was 'free' to marry another.

Dawn M
Denys (France); Rossier/Rousseau (Switzerland); Montgomery (Antrim, IRL & North Sydney NSW);† Finn (Co.Carlow, IRL & NSW); Wilson (Leicestershire & NSW); Blue (Sydney NSW); Fisher & Barrago & Harrington(all Tipperary, IRL)

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Guy Etchells

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,432
    • View Profile
    • Anguline Research Archives
Re: Hulk ship..conjugal rights or hanky panky?
« Reply #2 on: Saturday 03 February 18 06:37 GMT (UK) »
If he was on a hulk ship then that was simply an out of commission ship used as a prison, not a transport ship.
Some prisoners spent their who sentence on a hulk others only until they could be transported which could be months or even years later.

Was he actually transported?
If not it is possible his wife might have managed to arrange a conjugal visit by bribing the right people.
If he was transported then the answer is no.

Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

Offline Jang

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 972
    • View Profile
Re: Hulk ship..conjugal rights or hanky panky?
« Reply #3 on: Saturday 03 February 18 08:17 GMT (UK) »
I have a similar case - the main sticking point, however, is that William Crane appears to have married in St Leonard's Shoreditch 12 months after being sent to the "Justitia" in 1826.  There were no children born until Robert baptised 6 months after William was pardoned in July 1830. Unlikely?
Jan
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Elwyn Soutter

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,398
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Hulk ship..conjugal rights or hanky panky?
« Reply #4 on: Saturday 03 February 18 10:53 GMT (UK) »
I have a similar case - the main sticking point, however, is that William Crane appears to have married in St Leonard's Shoreditch 12 months after being sent to the "Justitia" in 1826.  There were no children born until Robert baptised 6 months after William was pardoned in July 1830. Unlikely?
Jan

Marriages didnít always take place in a church, though the subsequent record of the marriage would normally appear in that churches register. 

People got married in prison and sometimes in hospital and for a long time Presbyterians routinely conducted the ceremony in the Manse (the Ministers house) or at their home, rather than in church. A famous example was Joseph Plunkett who was a leader of the 1916 uprising in Dublin. He was married by a Roman Catholic priest in Kilmainham prison in May 1916, just hours before his execution.

I have no idea whether marriages were routinely allowed on prison hulks but if they were, then that could account for the marriage being in that churches records whilst the groom was incarcerated.
Elwyn

Offline Leashl

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
Re: Hulk ship..conjugal rights or hanky panky?
« Reply #5 on: Saturday 03 February 18 11:09 GMT (UK) »
Thanks for your replies and information. I have not been able to find out if he was transported but he was still on Stirling Castle in 1841 which was 3 years later, so I think not. Did the 10 year marriage rule apply to prisoners held on UK hulks? He is William Ensor imprisoned 1838, born 1808.
Hutchinson - Sussex; Underwood - Marylebone; Ensor - Marylebone; Bemmer - Middlesex/Prussia; Groocock - Husbands Bosworth; Hale - Stanstead Abbotss/Brentford; Price - Middlesex;

Offline Jang

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 972
    • View Profile
Re: Hulk ship..conjugal rights or hanky panky?
« Reply #6 on: Saturday 03 February 18 11:12 GMT (UK) »
Elwyn, that's good to know.
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline avm228

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 19,125
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Hulk ship..conjugal rights or hanky panky?
« Reply #7 on: Saturday 03 February 18 11:37 GMT (UK) »
William Ensorís records on the Stirling Castle at Devonport show that he was eventually pardoned on 19 October 1843 (while still on the hulk at Devonport).
Ayr: Barnes, Wylie
Caithness: MacGregor
Essex: Eldred (Pebmarsh)
Gloucs: Timbrell (Winchcomb)
Hants: Stares (Wickham)
Lincs: Maw, Jackson (Epworth, Belton)
London: Pierce
Suffolk: Markham (Framlingham)
Surrey: Gosling (Richmond)
Wilts: Matthews, Tarrant (Calne, Preshute)
Worcs: Milward (Redditch)
Yorks: Beaumont, Crook, Moore, Styring (Huddersfield); Middleton (Church Fenton); Exley, Gelder (High Hoyland); Barnes, Birchinall (Sheffield); Kenyon, Wood (Cumberworth/Denby Dale)

Offline Leashl

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
Re: Hulk ship..conjugal rights or hanky panky?
« Reply #8 on: Saturday 03 February 18 14:10 GMT (UK) »
William Ensorís records on the Stirling Castle at Devonport show that he was eventually pardoned on 19 October 1843 (while still on the hulk at Devonport).

Thank you so much. Case closed.
Hutchinson - Sussex; Underwood - Marylebone; Ensor - Marylebone; Bemmer - Middlesex/Prussia; Groocock - Husbands Bosworth; Hale - Stanstead Abbotss/Brentford; Price - Middlesex;