At 02:10 AM 27/03/2009, you wrote: >Hi Michelle, one can only assume that the permission was denied the first >time.. and they reapplied a couple of years later.. one or both of them may >have completed their sentences or maybe they have served "good" time.. That's the thing, permission was granted both times. >basically they behaved themselves and thought as such they should be able to >apply again. Have you tried looking to find out when they did get married >that should give you a clue.. if they didnt marry until after 1840 then you >know that they obviously didnt get permission earlier. Remember in these >early times the writing was practically undeciferable and most people could >neither read or write and often had heavy accents.. and its all basically up >to the person writing their name. So perhaps the original was difficult to >read.. hence the errors with names.. or perhaps she used an alias.. it would >really take a marriage registration that she bore witness to- to confirm her >actual name. Thomas was free at the time of both applications but Mary was still under bond. I think the error in her name was just a transcription error on the original document. They were married in Apr 1840. >Ok.. so they were married in the Church of England in Port Macquarie in 1840 >according to registration entries. I assume that it has been registered >twice because of the Convict status.. I know no other reason for a double >entry the CK part of it is the district in which the registration took >place.. that is the Church of England Port Macquarie part. So from what you've posted below, they got married twice as well! I think I'll have to order the certificates and see what's on there. Presumably there was no other option than C of E at the time, even though both were Catholic? > V1840120 44B/1840 WOOTTON THOMAS O'DONNELL MARY CK > V1840690 24B/1840 WOOTTON THOMAS O'DONNELL MARY CK > >I Notice that Thomas Wootton got his certificate of freedom in 1830.. makes >me wonder why he was denied permission to marry the first time. perhaps as >Mary had only been here a short time.. > >Anyway I hope this helps > >Sue. Sue, Yes, it's been a great help and much appreciated. Cheers, Michelle --------------------- Michelle Watson michelle@webcon.net.au Watson/Canet Family History - http://watsoncanet.webcon.net.au/ Researching: Watson, Canet, Harper, Whitley, Rann, Hamilton, O'Donnell, Wilkes, Freeman, Munro, Brown, Baker, Hughes, Davis, Sandilands

Michelle, When I looked for a registered marriage for Thomas and Mary.. the entries that I posted for 1840 were the only ones I could see on the index... both for 1840.. are you saying they married before that?? I am not sure about the church issue.. quite likely there was no other option. I do alot of transcribing.. and often all possibilities for a name will be entered just in case it is wrong. (I think that is what has happened here) However it cannot be ruled out that there was an alias... until you have documentery evidence to prove it!! You can check their register entries online... at the NSW births deaths and marriages.. they have online indexes 1788-1958 for marriages. I feel it unlikely that they married twice.. just that the registration took place (most likely once in Macquarie and once in Sydney at the main registration point) If I understand it correctly the V...... 26 B part tells where it was registered and the year. I am not sure how much the certificate would be able to tell you as they are church records.. and quite often very little is held on them. I recommend using a transcription agent ( it will only cost you $20 for both) and that way you dont waste a heap of money to get no further. Ohh I didnt mention earlier the Port Macquaried.. Church of England thing.. is mentioned in a table of early church codes on the births deaths and marriages website.. so when you look up the certificates scroll to the very bottom of the page and you will see the link to the church codes it will open up in a separate window. I am sorry I couldnt be of more help with this little puzzle.. I have entered everything I can think of to help. Sue.