Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Boards

Quick Search

Single word search

Tools

Findmypast DNA Banner

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

Desertion

Login to Add Reply Watch This
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Lynette

Lynette Report 4 Apr 2015 14:40

As a lot of my ancestors were convicts, 11 of them, some of them, left wives and children behind when they were transported to Australia. Does anyone know what the "usual" "procedure" was for the wife left behind? Did she revert to her maiden name? Did she continue to use her married name?

KathleenBell

KathleenBell Report 4 Apr 2015 14:46

Hi Lynette

I wouldn't think there was a "usual procedure" at all. I suspect most women would continue to use their married name. Some may have "married" again bigamously as it would have been difficult for them to make a living.

Not sure anyone will be able to give you a definitive answer.

Kath. x

Chris in Sussex

Chris in Sussex Report 4 Apr 2015 15:38

I have one....
Husband transported for life in 1828 and his daughter, baptised in the same year but after his departure, has a note in the register that her father was transported for life.

The wife then married again in 1830, the banns stating she was a 'widow' but the register states 'spinster'.

My understanding is that if a man was transported for life then the wife was free to remarry, like the 'presumed dead' for seven years. With transportation they knew he would not be returning so didn't have to wait the seven years? Also,I suppose, it was preferable to have a woman (possibly with children) safely remarried rather than a possible charge on the parish.

This seems to cover it....
The relevant Act is "An Act to restrain all Persons from Marriage until their former Wives and former Husbands be dead [1604.]"

Section 2, II states "II. Provided always, That this Act, nor any Thing therein contained, shall extend to any Person or Persons whose Husband or Wife shall be continually remaining beyond the Seas by the Space of seven Years together, or whose Husband or Wife shall absent him or herself the one from the other by the Space of seven Years together, in any Parts within his Majesty’s Dominions, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that Time."


Chris

Researching:
Avatar...My darling Dad. 1931-2019 'Take nothing on its looks, take everything on evidence. There is no better rule' Charles Dickens, Great Expectations. 'A brickwall is a problem that you haven't solved yet' Dave Annal http://media.nationalarchives.gov.uk/index.php/brick-walls-and-lost-ancestors/

Andysmum

Andysmum Report 4 Apr 2015 17:03

Another possibility was for the wife to join her husband in Australia. The link below is for an article which says the husband had to apply, but I am sure there was a case (in WDYTYA) where the wife applied to the UK government and was granted permission to go.

http://heritagegenealogy.com.au/blog/reuniting-of-wives-and-families-of-convicts/

Lynette

Lynette Report 5 Apr 2015 12:20

Thank you so much, Kath, Chris and Andysmum. Your help is fantastic.