I think there is a problem with this sighting in 1850.
Looking at the original, it seems to read-
Ellen is 24 years, born Islington.
Her calling, as I read it, is a nursing governess.
Going to the employment of A. J. HE?? Esq. of Melbourne.
On her marriage certificate to George PEACOCK, your Ellen made her mark (X)
So not likely to be a governess.
Sue
I had, in my own mind, ruled out the woman in this arrival .
As noted above, she was literate heading to be a governess
Your Ellen was not having used a cross for her name at marriage etc.
The lack of shipping arrival record is not unusual.
From the early 1850's hundreds of thousands arrived in Victoria from all over the world seeking gold.
Ships were deserted in the harbour as crew joined the passengers flocking to the goldfields.
It is wonderful really that we have the records that were kept and survived, but many did not.
I think it is interesting and possibly note worthy-
Ellen at her marriage to John WELLS described herself to the recording clergy as the widow of a mariner.
In reality, if we were pedantic, and assuming she is the widow of the inquest man, she was actually the widow of a miner. I do not think this is a reason to rule her out as the correct woman, but it possibly just shows a little of her mindset at the time. An occupation holding slightly higher status if you like and quite truthfully, the occupation before he was a miner
Also of interest, she in the inquest of George PEACOCK is noted as having one child. Have we missed one in records?
I believe she was advanced in pregnancy with her second (Happy) and was not in a position to wait for any "decent period" between her husband's death and the first marriage offer presented.
In a tent, one child and another on the way, no income!!
I wonder whether John WELLS brought any children from his previous marriage to his next with Ellen.
Anyhow, all just ideas.
Sue
