significance of comments on convict record

[LouisaHills]

Scribbled across the bottom of my ancestor Edward Edwin Blythe's convict record is:

"In Description Book of Susan 2, I Watson, Triton. Blythe is stated to have a wife Susan at Woolwich and 2 children, a Brother John and 3 sisters Jemima, Martha and Eliza."

My questions are: all documents state that he was transported on the Susan (departed Plymouth 24/04/1842), so why would he also be in the description books of the Isabella Watson and the Triton, which sailed sightly later? Are description books the same as log books? Was it usual to have family information added on to the record like that, and would the information have come from him or from elsewhere?

Other sources indicate that Susan was his sister-in-law rather than his wife, and he definitely had more siblings than those listed, so I'm curious of whether that was information he gave, or information they had sourced from elsewhere.

Many thanks

[Dundee]

The personal information has come from his indent which was usual for those transported during that time period.  He would have given the information himself.

https://stors.tas.gov.au/CON14-1-15

Two pages, images 6 and 7.

Debra 

[LouisaHills]

Thanks for directing me so precisely  .

Interestingly the indent mentions his "wife" and siblings, but not the two children, so the comment on his record must have at least partially come from an additional source.

Any ideas on the three different ships?

[Dundee]

They didn't always name all siblings, especially if there were a lot.

The children are recorded in their own column on the indent, they are not usually mentioned in the remarks column, only parents if alive, spouses and siblings.

There do not appear to be any surviving description lists for the Susan or Isabella Watson and he is not in the one for the Triton.  Perhaps there was just some confusion about which ship he would be sent on.  Alternatively they may be referring to the indent book as a whole.  If you go to the first page of the indents, the register is for all three ships so perhaps they were just being precise about which register he was in.

Debra 

[LouisaHills]

Oh yes, I see - 2 children right in the page gutter!

It does seem very strange that he should have said that Susan Marsh was his wife - he certainly didn't acknowledge her as such in England, nor did she ever use his surname. It is noticeable that the newspapers start off by describing her as his "sister-in-law", and then as "calling herself his sister-in-law" and then as "a woman living with him". She did go to visit him on the hulk at Woolwich, so it would have been common gossip that she was his wife - could that have overruled anything he tried to claim to the contrary?