I have had several phone calls from my elderly rellies who have followed this thread over the past couple of days.
Some observations:
The original poster commenced the enquiry over ten years ago, and the last time that RChatter posted on this thread was 19 March 2009, but that RChatter has been posting on other threads this year, and was most recently online just last month. Perhaps this is indicating that they are no longer interested in that John WARD, Wellington NSW.
In September 2016 a new RChatter posted on the thread, made four posts, confirming they have marriage certificates etc, and has not been on RChat since June 2017.
Until Illawarrian posted at reply #12, nothing had been added since Sept 2016. Ros had posted (at reply #5) on 14 Sept 2016 from her search of Trove from a newspaper cutting of 1 July 1854 from the Bathurst Free Press. I mention this post because it seems to me that it is indicating that the elusive John WARD was still alive and at Montefiores, Wellington in July 1854 and was ready to pay £5 reward for the return of an Iron Grey Horse BRANDED JM ... .
A possible sighting of John WARD in 1854 http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article62047813
Five Pounds Reward,
LOST from Fredericks Valley in April 1853, a iron grey horse, branded JM on near shoul-
der ; any person delivering the same to Mr. Carr, Inkeeper, Frederick's Valley shall receive
a reward of £3, or £5 if delivered to John Ward, Montefiores, Wellington.
Ros
Branded JM ... could that be J for John and M for Maxwell ? perhaps for the chap who died back in September 1853?
I reiterate, 'widow' had been used throughout much of NSW during the penal era, and into the early civil registration period by the clergy when marrying couples, where the prospective bride already had children with her, but she was not accompanied by her husband. We need to remember that until 1873, clergy had but two choices to write on their parish registers ...
Widow or
Spinster as there was no such process as Divorce in NSW until 1873. The decision as to what to write was up to the clergy. I have regularly posted about that broad meaning 19th century use of the word 'widow' prior to the 1861 death of Queen Victoria's husband. We need to remember that marriages end by the death of one party but also in the colonies in the early to mid 1800s by other methods ... for example separation of couples could be forced or could be inadvertent or could be contrived or could be by consent.
We also need to remember that the NSW practices I highlighted at a live link in reply #27 did not require any newspaper advertisements for women who were seeking to remarry despite perhaps having an absent husband who was no longer providing maintenance for the family. Trove digitised newspapers is an absolutely magnificant resource, but it is not a definitive family history legal text book on NSW marriage practices pre NSW divorce.
On two significant points both of which I think are worthy of reiteration:
Judith REECE's two NSW marriages predate civil registration, and thus whatever documents about those marriages are obtained from NSW BDM will have scant information about her origins, her husband's origins and are NOT marriage certificates, but they are Church of England marriages.
John MAXWELL's death in 1853 predates civil registration, and is a Roman Catholic burial. (ADD ... and thus NO d.c. - any burial record will not provide any family history information - no cause of death, no details of any marriage, no parents details - it will note the cemetery
)
I cannot see that there is any need to request Ros to go to the Archives to obtain copy of the Probate file, just to satisfy the curiosity of RChatters who already know they are not descendants.
JM
