Frederick WHERRITT Victoria 1841

[aus*jen]

I usually approach obit. information with as much caution as the info. on death certificates especially as it was nearly 70 years after his arrival.  If the "Duchess of Argyle" didn't exist as a bounty ship at that time I would consider the Argyle but need to explore all possibilities.
Possibly he paid his own fare which is more difficult to track or as you suggest arrived under an
assumed name. So far I have not located his arrival on Argyle as an assisted immigrant.   If he did
arrive on either the March or April 1841 Argyle then he left Liverpool very shortly after the baptism of his daughter.

I am also curious as to why he left his wife and child behind.  He remarried in 1852 but his wife
in the UK lived until the 1890's.  By today's standards that would be bigamy but apparently not in
those times. I have often wondered if his second wife knew of his previous marriage in the UK, she was my 2xgr.grandfather's sister.

Jen. 

[shume]

I think it was bigamy in those days but once they got to Aus who was going to check? Many married convicts male and female declared themselves single. Didn't mention that in the obituary!
Its a tricky one with the many spelling variations and as a researcher we used to call them "swimmers"
shume

[Skoosh]

Is this the name Wherritty & the y has fallen off on the long voyage? 

Skoosh.

[majm]

ADD  ... see final paragraph updating a live link found in one of the threads....

I think it was bigamy in those days but once they got to Aus who was going to check? Many married convicts male and female declared themselves single. Didn't mention that in the obituary!
Its a tricky one with the many spelling variations and as a researcher we used to call them "swimmers"
shume

Hi there,

I am somewhat flabbagasteratededed    over some of those factoidal twaddlements.  So I mention:
 
Bigamy
The very act of the English  government funding the transportation beyond the seas of persons under a sentence of seven or more years was SEPARATING married couples and thus effectively ending those marriages, as per various English Marriage laws  ... See several threads including:

One must always take into consideration the seven year rule and that seemingly bigamous relationships were not legally considered bigamous relationships.

In simple terms.
If a couple split and there was no contact for seven years (i.e. one assumed the other was dead) the partners were free to marry without penalty.

If one partner moved overseas the other was free to marry after seven years  even if they knew their partner was alive.
Cheers
Guy

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=648372.0

Australia
They were transported with documents giving details about themselves, with around 12,000 females and around 152,000 males to penal colonies in the then colonies of NSW, VDL and WA.  The penal admin system received paperwork about each convict, and the Tas Archives digitised resources includes very detailed files, showing among other things, the Marital status of each.  NSW Archives are also readily available, and a close inspection shows the abbreviation "UX" was often used to show married females arrived under their married surname, and retained that surname on all their formal convict records.
 
Declared themselves single
Until civil divorce came to these British Colonies in the mid to late 19th century, there was just two choices for the clergy to record on their church registers when marrying a couple.  The clergy could record either bachelor/spinster or Widow(er).   Divorcee Petitioner or Divorcee Respondent were not available.   The person recording the information on the register was not the bride or the groom but the clergy or his clerk.   The choice was made by the clergy, not by the bride/groom,  and in the instance of those under a then current sentence of a civil court, they actually required permission of the Governor of the penal colony to marry.   The governor (or his administrative Secretariat) then turned to those indents/musters/convict records and checked, and sometimes granted permission and sometimes declined to grant permission.  The application was submitted by the clergy and the response was received by the clergy.   A Widow was often the word used in a broad sense, to indicate a female with children to support, but no male supporting her and those children.  The word Widow seems to have taken on a narrow meaning after Queen Victoria became a widow.

It is also important to remember that the English marriage law of 1823 was 'ticked off' on 18 July 1823, and that several years later the Chief Justice of the NSW Supreme Court (Sir Francis Forbes) determined that unless an English statute law specifically mentioned that a law was to have effect in a special colony or colonies that such law was not effective in NSW or VDL.  He determined that this was to take effect from 19 July 1823. 

Some Trove Cuttings that may be of interest,
Lachlan Macquarie (NSW Governor) re Criminal Intercourse
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/627934 24 Feb 1810  Syd Gaz
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/627938 3 March 1810 Syd Gaz

'Swimmers'
Walked on Water is another expression I have heard, usually tongue in cheek       

JM

ADD 
In the thread on NSW laws etc,  there is an old link, which a later post updates.  Just in case you try the initial live link before reading all the thread,  here is the current updated live link re Divorce and Bigamy etc in the colonies...
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/34360/20050715-0000/www.aifs.gov.au/institute/seminars/finlay.html 

[majm]

ADD
19 July 1823 further significance

Read Sir Francis Forbes submitted info at ADB

http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/forbes-sir-francis-2052

In New South Wales Judge-Advocate (Sir) John Wylde of the Criminal Court and Judge Barron Field of the Supreme Court of Civil Judicature were notified that their appointments would terminate with the enactment of 4 Geo. IV, c. 96. This supremely important statute was passed on 19 July 1823.

https://www.records.nsw.gov.au/agency/23   

JM

[aus*jen]

Hi shume,   JM has provided some facts which will clarify the definition of 'bigamy' especially with
                  reference to the Colonies.   FW was not a convict so it was his choice to travel alone.
                  Perhaps he intended to bring his family to Aust. eventually.

Jen.
             

[aus*jen]

Well Skoosh, anything could have happened    A look at name variants is a good move 

Jen.

[majm]

 


And of course,  transportation of convicts to NSW (ie what is now NSW, Vic, Qld)  had effectively ceased in 1840.    FW arrives in April 1841 per the Argyle to Port Philip, likely as one of those in the steerage.

 

The info I posted re marriages, bigamy etc and what the clergy recorded on their registers also applies to those who came of their own accord .... seven years .... or separation beyond the seas ...

JM

[aus*jen]

JM  Thankyou for your input and links  Much appreciated   Good to have clarification on possible
      'bigamy' especially in relation to convicts.  Some convicts' families did join them in Aus. courtesy
      of Govt. and my family was fortunate enough to be one of them.
 
ADDED   
      Have also noted similar applied to those who came as free passengers.

regards,
Jen.