Can any one assist me. I have copies of old photos which I have had copied using the Kodak photo centre at the chemist. I want them to be taken to poster size and the operator tells me that they can't take the photos any bigger than 8x10 as they will lose definition. Can anyone suggest where I can get them copied to a larger size and roughly how much it will cost, as I am having them copied for the Historical Society so costs are important. TIA Helen

Hi Janet, This is probably not a Catholic orphanage but my great half uncle ended up here - Ballarat Children's Homes and Family Services Inc. Ludbrook House, 115 Lydiard St, North Ballarat, 3350. Phone 03 5332 1434 and fax no. 03 5332 1724 My G half uncle was born in 1907, went into Berry St Babies home then after a couple of "bad" foster homes he ended up in Ballarat. Good luck Pat -----Original Message----- From: Janet Gregurke [mailto:janetgregurke59@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, 28 August 2005 6:01 PM To: AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: ophanage help l am wondering if some one could help me find what orphanage in Ballarat was run by the catholic order. My grandfather was supposed to of been put in one when his parents Hannah and Thomas Malloy/Molloy were burnt to death from a tent fire on the gold fields. Hannah and Thomas were married in 1895 so it was some time after that. So far l cant find a death for either of them. Why would this be so? Many years ago l wrote to the orphanages and no one could find my grandfather. Any help or suggestions to a novice like me would be much appriciated. ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== Support RootsWeb and help it support genealogy http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html

"burnt to death from a tent fire on the gold fields." How sad!! :( You've just reminded me of our trip down to Oz last April. We managed to make it to Sovereign Hill for a few hours (Lauren HATED the flies, she's definitely not an Aussie! lol) and had a wonderful time and got some great photos! :D I wanted more than anything to make it to Bendigo to do some hands-on research but our get-together with friends there was cancelled and then we didn't have a free day during the week. Just makes me even madder at the US Army for not letting hubby have 4 weeks instead of 3 cause we only got 15 days in which to visit Dad, Casey, Mum in Tassie and all the other friends who had "nabbed" me and demanded we meet. I'm sure I would've found plenty of stuff on my Bynons and Armstrongs too ... sigh!! Thanks for reminding me what a great time we had! :D Take care, Rob.

Hi List, I am trying to make contact with present day descendents of Sarah Emily KING and John James NEWMAN who married in 1881 and had at least 6 children, but only 2 lived for any length of time :- 1. Norman Noble Newman, born Melbourne 1885 died Melbourne 1939, married to Ruby Frances Renny in 1916 and had 2 children :- 1a. Albert Bertram Newman, born and died Flemington 1917 1b. Patricia Newman, born Flemington 1919, married to Percival Hugh Brown in 1937 2. Edith Bell Hartley Newman, born Flemington/Kensington 1889, married to Alexander Gustaf Bracken at Horsham in 1908 and had 2 children :- 2a. Ruby Isabel Bracken, born 1909 2b. Norman Alexander Bracken, born 1911 After the death of Sarah King's 1st husband John Newman aged 38 in 1899, Sarah married her 2nd husband William John Cowan of Sale in 1912. Sarah died aged 78 North Melbourne 1937. Any help or advice would be very much appreciated With best wishes from sunny Queensland ................... Joan Jackson.

l am wondering if some one could help me find what orphanage in Ballarat was run by the catholic order. My grandfather was supposed to of been put in one when his parents Hannah and Thomas Malloy/Molloy were burnt to death from a tent fire on the gold fields. Hannah and Thomas were married in 1895 so it was some time after that. So far l cant find a death for either of them. Why would this be so? Many years ago l wrote to the orphanages and no one could find my grandfather. Any help or suggestions to a novice like me would be much appriciated.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Player" <player6@bigpond.com> To: "Susan Patterson" <aapatterson@bigpond.com> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 5:34 PM Subject: Re: AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-D Digest V05 #217 > Hi Susan, > > I was very interested in your information about marriage. I have an ancestor > Thomas Fowler who married Jane Broughton/Bruton in 1851 in Port Phillip (I > have yet to find a record). The marriage information came from his sons' > birth certificates (William John 1855 and Thomas jnr 1857) the latter birth > took place in Buninyong. In both cases the father was the informant. He > described himself as a butcher (1855) and miner (1857). > > I am descended from the older son William John. On William's marriage > certificate his mother is listed as Sophia Fowler. In 1864 there is a > marriage between Thomas Fowler (snr) and (Ellen) Sophia Ball. On the > certificate he describes himself as a bachelor and no children are > mentioned. On his death certificate in 1913 his children William and Thomas > are mentioned as well as several others - none from his wife Sophia. Three > marriages are noted - first two 'unkown'. The children are recorded as being > from previous marriages. > > Meanwhile Jane Fowler is recorded as giving birth to a daughter 'Jane' in > Buninyong, 1864 who died six months later. She describes the child as > illegitimate but lists her other children including William John and Thomas. > She also lists an older son Henry and a couple of stillbirths. > > In 1878 I found a death cert for a Jane Fowler, right age, in a Lunatic > Asylum in Kew. > > I am stumped as to what happened here. Did Jane lose the plot, have an > affair and Thomas abandon her for Sophia? Or did he get cosy with Sophia > causing Jane to hit rock bottom? How was he able to marry again? > > I would love to hear any theories of ideas. > Cheers Maureen > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Susan Patterson" <aapatterson@bigpond.com> > To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 2:33 PM > Subject: Re: AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-D Digest V05 #217 > > > > Former convicts could marry after seven years. It was like the seven years > > people had to wait, when someone disappeared, before the estate could be > > cleared up. > > Susan > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-D-request@rootsweb.com> > > To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-D@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 4:00 AM > > Subject: AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-D Digest V05 #217 > > > > > > > > ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== > > Victorian place names database > > http://www.rootsweb.com/~auswgw/vic_place_names.htm > > >

Too Wa Family I have just discovered a photograph in Talbot of Too Wa participating in a Chinese race at the 1895 Boxing Day Sports which were an annual fund-raising event for the Amherst Hospital. If Jan Sweetten is still on the list, she may be interested. Marie Kau

Hi All, Am just wondering if any one knows anything of Martha ATTENBROUGH (could be misspelt and be ATTENBOROUGH) and/or her parents as seen in the BDM entry below: Digger - Pioneer Index. Victoria 1836-1888 Surname: ATTENBROUGH Given Names: Martha Event: B Spouse Surname/Father: Thomas Spouse Gvn Names/Mother: Maria Jenkins TOMBS Age: Sex: Birth Place: MALDON Death Place: Year: 1859 Reg Number: 14874 Denomination: Parish: Fiche: Thanks Anne Hanson

Former convicts could marry after seven years. It was like the seven years people had to wait, when someone disappeared, before the estate could be cleared up. Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-D-request@rootsweb.com> To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-D@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 4:00 AM Subject: AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-D Digest V05 #217

Hey Pat. Could be such, like two days before my grandfather was born, the 1st minister came into the area on horseback & married his parents & noted the birth of the two elder brothers. As he, the minister, was still doing his "rounds" & it was still some time before he got back to "civilization" to register the births. Notebooks were either carried in pockets or saddle bags etc & in a lot of cases, the minister's mind wouldnt have been that good, that he would remember every entry he made,so a lot of his entries would have had to be checked again. The above was in North west New South Wales in the 1850s. Mike. Brisbane. At 07:00 AM 8/26/2005, you wrote: >AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-D Digest Volume 05 : Issue 220 > >Today's Topics: > #1 strange certificates ["Pat Hussey" > <vphussey@dodo.com.au] > #2 Re: strange certificates [Ada Ackerly > <aackers@alphalink.com] > >Administrivia: >To unsubscribe from AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-D, send a message to > > AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-D-request@rootsweb.com > >that contains in the body of the message the command > > unsubscribe > >and no other text. No subject line is necessary, but if your software >requires one, just use unsubscribe in the subject, too. > >Searchable archives: >http://searches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl?list=AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L > > >______________________________X-Message: #1 >Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:00:19 +1000 >From: "Pat Hussey" <vphussey@dodo.com.au> >To: AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com >Message-ID: <000801c5a918$bfac8170$c420ddcb@home4503549a9a> >Subject: strange certificates >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" > >Dear list - Please excuse my ignorance, being still on my"L" >plates re certificates, but I'm puzzled by a notation under"informant" on >birth certificates which states "father- after declaration according to >law".Did it just mean he was too busy or was unable to register the birth >for some reason - or could it have a more sinister reason - Would love to >uncover a scandal, so far all branches of the family tree have been >boringly ordinary. Also Ron - regarding marriages in the time of Henry >V111, I was under the impression that it was mostly the "upper" classes >who went through the ceremony of marriage, and the peasants just simply >got on with life without necessarily being registered- In other words,when >did the institution of marriage become a req uirement by law? Just >curious - > >______________________________X-Message: #2 >Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:39:49 +1000 >From: Ada Ackerly <aackers@alphalink.com.au> >To: AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com >Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20050825123259.00a174c0@pop.alphalink.com.au> >Subject: Re: strange certificates >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; >x-avg-checked=avg-ok-538D7B46 > >Hello Pat, > >It would help to give you an answer on your first query if you could give >a name of the child and a date of the birth certificate, and whether it is >Australian & which state. The law changed quite a lot over time, and >sometimes there is information in court records, particularly in Equity >cases of the Victorian Supreme Court. I could check my indexes on these. > >Regards Ada > >At 12:00 25-08-05 +1000, Pat Hussey wrote: > >>Dear list - Please excuse my ignorance, being still on my"L" >>plates re certificates, but I'm puzzled by a notation under"informant" on >>birth certificates which states "father- after declaration according to >>law".Did it just mean he was too busy or was unable to register the birth >>for some reason - or could it have a more sinister reason - Would love to >>uncover a scandal, so far all branches of the family tree have been >>boringly ordinary. >> >> >> >>==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >>To unsubscribe from this mailing list send the word 'unsubscribe' in >>the body of a message to AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L-request@rootsweb.com > >regards, >Ada Ackerly, Melbourne, Australia >formerly Ackerly DocuSearch > > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/81 - Release Date: 24-08-05

Hello - While I'm not an expert in this by any means, I believe the growth in marriages and baptisms in the 'lower classes' in England, was tied to several things, including Parish aid to paupers, and the growth of Non-Conformist religions. As more and more Counties and parishes in England assumed responsibility for the poor, they wanted to be sure they were extending aid only to 'deserving' people. They wanted to be sure - or as sure as possible - the parents were born in the parish, or had worked there for over a year, etc. I even read one case where they based everything on the grandparents! Parishes sued one another, to force them to take the poor unfortunate families. (rather like ping-pong.) It became even more important when Union-houses were built, and one needed to prove their family lineage to claim help. As to the growth of Non-Conformist religions, many C of E vicars wouldn't allow people to be buried in consecrated ground without knowledge of a 'proper' baptism. (In fact, until the late 1700's, the bodies of shipwrecked sailors were left wherever they 'landed', and Parliament had to pass a law requiring that they be buried, at Parish expense.) Once again, the newspapers had stories about children's bodies being turned away from the burial grounds by officious vicars, who knew the parents weren't C of E, well into the 1850s. Then, when offers of Free transport to Australia started to be made, but a person had to be able to prove they were over 15, but under 30, baptisms became Very Important! (I've seen whole families of children, all baptized the same day, in parish records.) I suspect some very sympathetic curates may have 'added' them to the records at a later date, as they're written up on separate pages, then noted into the registers. People still managed to live 'free' lives - the case based on the residence of the grandparents involved 5 children born to a woman living with a man not her husband, so the Court went to her husband's place of birth to establish which parish should receive them. (It didn't matter a whit where their biological father lived - just where her husband had lived!) Hope this helps a little. Julia Julia Mosman, OPC for St.Austell,Charlestown, and Treverbyn website http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~staustell W. Briton newspaper transcripts at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wbritonad

Hello Pat, It would help to give you an answer on your first query if you could give a name of the child and a date of the birth certificate, and whether it is Australian & which state. The law changed quite a lot over time, and sometimes there is information in court records, particularly in Equity cases of the Victorian Supreme Court. I could check my indexes on these. Regards Ada At 12:00 25-08-05 +1000, Pat Hussey wrote: >Dear list - Please excuse my ignorance, being still on my"L" >plates re certificates, but I'm puzzled by a notation under"informant" on >birth certificates which states "father- after declaration according to >law".Did it just mean he was too busy or was unable to register the birth >for some reason - or could it have a more sinister reason - Would love to >uncover a scandal, so far all branches of the family tree have been >boringly ordinary. > > > >==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >To unsubscribe from this mailing list send the word 'unsubscribe' in >the body of a message to AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L-request@rootsweb.com regards, Ada Ackerly, Melbourne, Australia formerly Ackerly DocuSearch -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/81 - Release Date: 24-08-05

Dear list - Please excuse my ignorance, being still on my"L" plates re certificates, but I'm puzzled by a notation under"informant" on birth certificates which states "father- after declaration according to law".Did it just mean he was too busy or was unable to register the birth for some reason - or could it have a more sinister reason - Would love to uncover a scandal, so far all branches of the family tree have been boringly ordinary. Also Ron - regarding marriages in the time of Henry V111, I was under the impression that it was mostly the "upper" classes who went through the ceremony of marriage, and the peasants just simply got on with life without necessarily being registered- In other words,when did the institution of marriage become a req uirement by law? Just curious -

And for anyone interested in making contact with Victoria Police here is the address. museum@police.Victoria.bc.ca Regards, Ray. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sherrie Blackman" <Sherrie@blackman-genealogy.homeip.net> To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2005 11:21 PM Subject: Re: Tracing a German miner > Hi Tim, > > Foelsche Naturalistion papers are on-line in the National Archives... > > http://www.naa.gov.au/the_collection/recordsearch.html > > Naturalisation papers usually include where the person has been living > since entering Australia. > Perhaps there may be some reference to Victoria. > > Or possibly there may be other information in the National Archives > regarding > any time Foelsche spent in Victoria. > > > You can also contact the Victorian Historical Unit > > Victoria Police Museum > Address 637 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3005 Postal Address PO Box 415, > Melbourne 3005 > Telephone (03) 9247-5213 Fax (03) 9247-5216 > (Notes - Formally known as the Victoria Police Historical Unit) > > Kind regards, > Sherrie. > > Sydney, NSW. > > > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:30:40 +1000, tim smith <tghsmith@bigpond.com> > wrote: > >> I am a PhD student writing on the photographic work of the South >> Australian police Inspector, Paul Foelsche who migrated from Hamburg, >> arriving in Adelaide in 1854. A comment in a letter by him implies >> that he spent 2 years on the Victorian goldfields, possibly in the >> Goulbourn district before enrolling in the South Australian police force >> in November 1856. This would suggest that he tried mining, or perhaps >> even joined the Victorian police on the goldfields for those two years. >> Can you direct me as to where I might records that relate this district >> and time. >> >> sincerely >> >> Tim Smith >> Tel: 0413 613784 >> >> >> >> ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >> Searchable archives at >> http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/?list=AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L >> >> > > > > > ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== > Searchable archives at > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/?list=AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/80 - Release Date: 23/08/2005 > >

Hi Tim, Foelsche Naturalistion papers are on-line in the National Archives... http://www.naa.gov.au/the_collection/recordsearch.html Naturalisation papers usually include where the person has been living since entering Australia. Perhaps there may be some reference to Victoria. Or possibly there may be other information in the National Archives regarding any time Foelsche spent in Victoria. You can also contact the Victorian Historical Unit Victoria Police Museum Address 637 Flinders Street, Melbourne 3005 Postal Address PO Box 415, Melbourne 3005 Telephone (03) 9247-5213 Fax (03) 9247-5216 (Notes - Formally known as the Victoria Police Historical Unit) Kind regards, Sherrie. Sydney, NSW. On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 17:30:40 +1000, tim smith <tghsmith@bigpond.com> wrote: > I am a PhD student writing on the photographic work of the South > Australian police Inspector, Paul Foelsche who migrated from Hamburg, > arriving in Adelaide in 1854. A comment in a letter by him implies > that he spent 2 years on the Victorian goldfields, possibly in the > Goulbourn district before enrolling in the South Australian police force > in November 1856. This would suggest that he tried mining, or perhaps > even joined the Victorian police on the goldfields for those two years. > Can you direct me as to where I might records that relate this district > and time. > > sincerely > > Tim Smith > Tel: 0413 613784 > > > > ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== > Searchable archives at > http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/?list=AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L > >

This is from http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/sarc/Redundant%202004/introduction.htm The Commonwealth Government opts out But while the new Commonwealth Government had won power to legislate in the family law area, (and could have enacted a uniform nation-wide Marriage Act) it chose not to. In fact, the area quickly came to be regarded as politically controversial and best left to the states. So for almost 60 years after Federation the states regulated marriage, divorce and the custody of children. That naturally gave rise to a complex, confusing set of laws which varied from state to state. One author - in 1910 - thought the laws so different that he argued it would be possible to be considered married in one state but not in another. "There is a good deal of diversity in the divorce law of the states, and it is quite possible, so long as the states remain separate law districts, that parties may be married person in the view of one state and single persons according to the law of another," he wrote. (Harrison Moore, The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, second edition, 1910) The only time the Commonwealth made any foray into the family law arena was to make brief and temporary laws to deal with wartime conditions. and from http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/seminars/finlay.html#australia In Australia, as we have seen, the expedient of parliamentary divorce, as a way of escaping from a marriage, had never existed. A 'popular' way out was bigamy based on the presumption of death. This presumption was based on a common law rule in English law 'that a person could be presumed dead, who had not been heard of for seven years by those who would be most likely to hear of them if they were alive.'40 The rule was institutionalised by legislation: As a response to social problems, the British parliament had passed a series of acts dealing with bigamy, the ending of a marriage and remarriage under certain conditions. The first as early as 1603 allowed for remarriage after a period of absence of seven years if one of the partners did not know the 'other to be living within that time'. With the expansion of the Empire, abandoned wives and their children became a more pressing problem in England. Subsequent acts made it easier for those deserted or abandoned to remarry. One in 1822, enabled men and women to remarry, provided they signed an affidavit to the effect that their spouse had died. An act in 1828 gave even greater leeway. It allowed for a remarriage if one spouse were 'continually absent . for the space of seven years . and shall not have been known . to be living within that time'. So we are back to 1603. regards Les -----Original Message----- From: Ron Phillips [mailto:ronphillips@netspace.net.au] Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2005 10:04 PM To: AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Fw: Strange Certificates. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au> To: "The Gilchrists" <cocopops2004@bigpond.com>; <AUS-VIC-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Strange Certificates. > Hi Jackie - No sorry to be honest I have never had the need to look into > this in such detail. My VERY limited knowledge has simply been built on > over time when I come across a bit of info in conjunction with other > research plus my contact with the Law in my work - On the right side I > might add!!! > > I suggest that it would be difficult to find any specific date unless you > know a good historian and it would also very much depend on which Country > you were interested as the act of formalising took place at widely > different times in different Countries. Its one of those things that > started off in one place quietly gathering momentum and became just > "accepted" as a part of Common Law which as we know pre-dated Statute Law > until it was eventually ratified by an Act of Parliament mainly to > "formalise" what was already generally accepted anyway! I guess as even > today the illustrious leaders of the time aka Politicians aka "Nothing > much to do so lets dream up something" finally got to do something!! > > Jokes aside - as a start I might suggest you start looking around the > Reign of Henry the 8th in England. The Catholic Church back then I suggest > would not have entertained such a practice. Marriage before God was for > life and unless you could show the dead body of your late lamented Spouse > then you were still married and up the creek! however when good King Henry > decided 1 wife was not enough and broke with the Roman Catholic Church to > form the Church of England I would think that would probably be around the > time this stared to gain a toe hold. Part of the Reformation instigated by > Henry was a vast liberalising of the doctrine of Rome and I dare say there > were many Living in Sin because of broken or dysfunctional marriages who > wanted to re-marry but could not produce a body and I think would have put > Henry under a bit of pressure to include that in his program of reform > especially if the proponents were in high places and of use to the King!! > > On the other Listers point about the use of 7 Years as the measure I agree > this has been around since Adam - almost literally - and its origins are > lost in the mists of time but if I may advance a theory that it might be > related to the Christian belief of the formation of the world - 6 days of > labour and on the 7th rest? Its only a theory folks so please don't jump > on me! I have nothing to back it so if anyone has a better idea I am happy > to let you take the high ground!! > > So many of our beliefs and practices are a very curious mixture of > religious beliefs and worldly desires and compromises abound!! Take for > example Easter - This is a time to reflect on the death and resurrection > of Christ yet we celebrate with flaming Rabbits and Eggs which have > absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the death and resurrection!! If > you look back in time that part of Easter is actually a Pagan Fertility > Ritual. It was introduced to placate the last of the diehard believers in > the pre-Christian era Roman Gods to shut them up so that they would stop > tossing early Christians to the Lions - no that last bit is a joke but it > was a compromise nevertheless with what are referred to as pagans. > > Disclaimer - The preceding statement is NOT intended to promote any > particular Religion or belief not is it intended to denigrate disadvantage > or isolate any particular Religious beliefs or Practices. It is intended > simply as a possible explanation for a particular event or events. So > please before non Christians or even Christians of different persuasions > start trying to ram my house with cars loaded with explosives please > don't - OK? > > Cheers > Ron Phillips > Melbourne Vic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "The Gilchrists" <cocopops2004@bigpond.com> > To: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au>; <AUS-VIC-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 11:59 PM > Subject: Re: Strange Certificates. > > >> Hi Ron >> Any idea when the PRESUMPTION OF DEATH criteria was introduced? >> >> Do you know what sort of a paper trail I'd need to follow to learn more? >> I'd >> imagine a Stat Dec would have been one requirement. >> >> TIA >> >> Jackie in Brisbane. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au> >> To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:11 PM >> Subject: Re: Strange Certificates. >> >> >> | Err ... Folks I never said dead I said PRESUMED dead. I agree they >> didn't >> | necessarily have to actually be dead probably most weren't!! >> | >> | Those of us who have passed through the rights of a church marriage >> will >> | recall the oath "... till death do us part...". >> | >> | The Church's view was that death was the ONLY permissible reason to >> dissolve >> | a marriage and allow a person to re-marry without incurring the wrath >> of >> | God. Its transition to statute law was tempered by necessity and thus a >> | PRESUMPTION of death was introduced as a compromise between the >> Church's >> | teaching about Divorce and the recognition that life must go on. >> However >> | again the Church imposed rigid conditions on its introduction. I am >> sure >> | none of the Church Officials were fooled for a minute that the missing >> | partner was actually dead but as long as the Church could legitimately >> say >> | with hand on heart that it BELIEVED it so then a dissolution of >> marriage >> was >> | permissible. >> | >> | The Church clearly could not allow or grant a dissolution of a marriage >> | without compromising its own teachings if both the partners were >> clearly >> | still at large and visible in society or were known to be alive and >> kicking >> | be they in the Colony or overseas. To do so would then be a Divorce >> which >> | was not permitted rather then a dissolution which was. Thus by the >> partners >> | having absolutely no sight of each other or any other form of contact >> of >> any >> | kind either directly or indirectly then it was accepted that the >> missing >> | partner must be deceased otherwise why would a loving partner not make >> | contact with their spouse? Thus the 'surviving' partner was considered >> a >> | Widow or Widower and could re-marry without incurring the wrath of the >> | Church. >> | >> | I also agree the separation of water for 7 years was also grounds for a >> | dissolution but this also as with the absence clause above carried with >> it >> a >> | prerequisite of no contact of any kind whatsoever during that period >> which >> | again is another convenient way of presuming death and thus freeing the >> | partners to re-marry. >> | >> | I hope we don't get down to a discussion on the finer points of Law - >> we >> | could be here forever! One cannot be pedantic over interpretations of >> Law >> | (even today) and we must remain flexible in interpreting perhaps what >> was >> | INTENDED not necessarily what was actually stated in the statute books. >> | >> | Cheers >> | Ron Phillips >> | Melbourne Vic >> | >> | >> | >> | >> | >> | ----- Original Message ----- >> | From: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au> >> | To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> >> | Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:02 PM >> | Subject: Re: Strange Certificates. >> | >> | >> | > Sounds like the first husband shot through and after 7 years missing >> was >> | > presumed dead leaving the wife free to remarry. >> | > The JP's ruling was noted on the Records in case the first husband >> should >> | > happen to turned up again. The notation would then stop the wife from >> | > being charged with bigamy >> | > >> | > Ron Phillips >> | > Melbourne >> | > >> | > >> | > >> | > ----- Original Message ----- >> | > From: "kfarrow" <kcfarrow@bigpond.net.au> >> | > To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> >> | > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 6:35 PM >> | > Subject: Strange Certificates. >> | > >> | > >> | >> Dear All, I have a family from Scotland who went to Steiglitz >> goldmining, >> | >> and had several children. The woman then has children to another man >> . >> | >> Her marriage certificate said "the above Elizabeth Rankin has been >> away >> | >> from her former husband seven years and having obtained the advice >> of a >> | >> Justice of the Peace, received information tha it was lawful to >> marry >> | >> again after this period. Left her ior deceased on February 18th >> 1858. >> | >> Has anyone had this on a Marriage certificate? >> | >> Regards Chris Farrow >> | >> >> | >> >> | >> >> | >> ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >> | >> Victorian place names database >> | >> http://www.rootsweb.com/~auswgw/vic_place_names.htm >> | >> >> | > >> | > >> | > ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >> | > Support RootsWeb and help it support genealogy >> | > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html >> | > >> | >> | >> | ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >> | Threaded archives at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/aus-vic-goldfields >> | >> > ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== Practice safe genealogy - don't include the personal details of the living. -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 19/08/2005

----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au> To: "The Gilchrists" <cocopops2004@bigpond.com>; <AUS-VIC-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Strange Certificates. > Hi Jackie - No sorry to be honest I have never had the need to look into > this in such detail. My VERY limited knowledge has simply been built on > over time when I come across a bit of info in conjunction with other > research plus my contact with the Law in my work - On the right side I > might add!!! > > I suggest that it would be difficult to find any specific date unless you > know a good historian and it would also very much depend on which Country > you were interested as the act of formalising took place at widely > different times in different Countries. Its one of those things that > started off in one place quietly gathering momentum and became just > "accepted" as a part of Common Law which as we know pre-dated Statute Law > until it was eventually ratified by an Act of Parliament mainly to > "formalise" what was already generally accepted anyway! I guess as even > today the illustrious leaders of the time aka Politicians aka "Nothing > much to do so lets dream up something" finally got to do something!! > > Jokes aside - as a start I might suggest you start looking around the > Reign of Henry the 8th in England. The Catholic Church back then I suggest > would not have entertained such a practice. Marriage before God was for > life and unless you could show the dead body of your late lamented Spouse > then you were still married and up the creek! however when good King Henry > decided 1 wife was not enough and broke with the Roman Catholic Church to > form the Church of England I would think that would probably be around the > time this stared to gain a toe hold. Part of the Reformation instigated by > Henry was a vast liberalising of the doctrine of Rome and I dare say there > were many Living in Sin because of broken or dysfunctional marriages who > wanted to re-marry but could not produce a body and I think would have put > Henry under a bit of pressure to include that in his program of reform > especially if the proponents were in high places and of use to the King!! > > On the other Listers point about the use of 7 Years as the measure I agree > this has been around since Adam - almost literally - and its origins are > lost in the mists of time but if I may advance a theory that it might be > related to the Christian belief of the formation of the world - 6 days of > labour and on the 7th rest? Its only a theory folks so please don't jump > on me! I have nothing to back it so if anyone has a better idea I am happy > to let you take the high ground!! > > So many of our beliefs and practices are a very curious mixture of > religious beliefs and worldly desires and compromises abound!! Take for > example Easter - This is a time to reflect on the death and resurrection > of Christ yet we celebrate with flaming Rabbits and Eggs which have > absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the death and resurrection!! If > you look back in time that part of Easter is actually a Pagan Fertility > Ritual. It was introduced to placate the last of the diehard believers in > the pre-Christian era Roman Gods to shut them up so that they would stop > tossing early Christians to the Lions - no that last bit is a joke but it > was a compromise nevertheless with what are referred to as pagans. > > Disclaimer - The preceding statement is NOT intended to promote any > particular Religion or belief not is it intended to denigrate disadvantage > or isolate any particular Religious beliefs or Practices. It is intended > simply as a possible explanation for a particular event or events. So > please before non Christians or even Christians of different persuasions > start trying to ram my house with cars loaded with explosives please > don't - OK? > > Cheers > Ron Phillips > Melbourne Vic > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "The Gilchrists" <cocopops2004@bigpond.com> > To: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au>; <AUS-VIC-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 11:59 PM > Subject: Re: Strange Certificates. > > >> Hi Ron >> Any idea when the PRESUMPTION OF DEATH criteria was introduced? >> >> Do you know what sort of a paper trail I'd need to follow to learn more? >> I'd >> imagine a Stat Dec would have been one requirement. >> >> TIA >> >> Jackie in Brisbane. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au> >> To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:11 PM >> Subject: Re: Strange Certificates. >> >> >> | Err ... Folks I never said dead I said PRESUMED dead. I agree they >> didn't >> | necessarily have to actually be dead probably most weren't!! >> | >> | Those of us who have passed through the rights of a church marriage >> will >> | recall the oath "... till death do us part...". >> | >> | The Church's view was that death was the ONLY permissible reason to >> dissolve >> | a marriage and allow a person to re-marry without incurring the wrath >> of >> | God. Its transition to statute law was tempered by necessity and thus a >> | PRESUMPTION of death was introduced as a compromise between the >> Church's >> | teaching about Divorce and the recognition that life must go on. >> However >> | again the Church imposed rigid conditions on its introduction. I am >> sure >> | none of the Church Officials were fooled for a minute that the missing >> | partner was actually dead but as long as the Church could legitimately >> say >> | with hand on heart that it BELIEVED it so then a dissolution of >> marriage >> was >> | permissible. >> | >> | The Church clearly could not allow or grant a dissolution of a marriage >> | without compromising its own teachings if both the partners were >> clearly >> | still at large and visible in society or were known to be alive and >> kicking >> | be they in the Colony or overseas. To do so would then be a Divorce >> which >> | was not permitted rather then a dissolution which was. Thus by the >> partners >> | having absolutely no sight of each other or any other form of contact >> of >> any >> | kind either directly or indirectly then it was accepted that the >> missing >> | partner must be deceased otherwise why would a loving partner not make >> | contact with their spouse? Thus the 'surviving' partner was considered >> a >> | Widow or Widower and could re-marry without incurring the wrath of the >> | Church. >> | >> | I also agree the separation of water for 7 years was also grounds for a >> | dissolution but this also as with the absence clause above carried with >> it >> a >> | prerequisite of no contact of any kind whatsoever during that period >> which >> | again is another convenient way of presuming death and thus freeing the >> | partners to re-marry. >> | >> | I hope we don't get down to a discussion on the finer points of Law - >> we >> | could be here forever! One cannot be pedantic over interpretations of >> Law >> | (even today) and we must remain flexible in interpreting perhaps what >> was >> | INTENDED not necessarily what was actually stated in the statute books. >> | >> | Cheers >> | Ron Phillips >> | Melbourne Vic >> | >> | >> | >> | >> | >> | ----- Original Message ----- >> | From: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au> >> | To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> >> | Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:02 PM >> | Subject: Re: Strange Certificates. >> | >> | >> | > Sounds like the first husband shot through and after 7 years missing >> was >> | > presumed dead leaving the wife free to remarry. >> | > The JP's ruling was noted on the Records in case the first husband >> should >> | > happen to turned up again. The notation would then stop the wife from >> | > being charged with bigamy >> | > >> | > Ron Phillips >> | > Melbourne >> | > >> | > >> | > >> | > ----- Original Message ----- >> | > From: "kfarrow" <kcfarrow@bigpond.net.au> >> | > To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> >> | > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 6:35 PM >> | > Subject: Strange Certificates. >> | > >> | > >> | >> Dear All, I have a family from Scotland who went to Steiglitz >> goldmining, >> | >> and had several children. The woman then has children to another man >> . >> | >> Her marriage certificate said "the above Elizabeth Rankin has been >> away >> | >> from her former husband seven years and having obtained the advice >> of a >> | >> Justice of the Peace, received information tha it was lawful to >> marry >> | >> again after this period. Left her ior deceased on February 18th >> 1858. >> | >> Has anyone had this on a Marriage certificate? >> | >> Regards Chris Farrow >> | >> >> | >> >> | >> >> | >> ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >> | >> Victorian place names database >> | >> http://www.rootsweb.com/~auswgw/vic_place_names.htm >> | >> >> | > >> | > >> | > ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >> | > Support RootsWeb and help it support genealogy >> | > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html >> | > >> | >> | >> | ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >> | Threaded archives at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/aus-vic-goldfields >> | >> >

Dear all, just a thought.... why the period 7 years? It seems to be a time period that crops up, such as tax papers being kept for 7 years. I think the Bible tells us to forgive, not 7 times, but 77 times. Again the number 7. Is there a reason for this number? Any suggestions? Marg (the curious!) Watson.

According to a discussion of the Protected Estates Amendment (Missing Persons) Bill in Hansard (see http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LA200410270 06 a person is presumed dead after being missing for seven years, even today. Leone >

Err ... Folks I never said dead I said PRESUMED dead. I agree they didn't necessarily have to actually be dead probably most weren't!! Those of us who have passed through the rights of a church marriage will recall the oath "... till death do us part...". The Church's view was that death was the ONLY permissible reason to dissolve a marriage and allow a person to re-marry without incurring the wrath of God. Its transition to statute law was tempered by necessity and thus a PRESUMPTION of death was introduced as a compromise between the Church's teaching about Divorce and the recognition that life must go on. However again the Church imposed rigid conditions on its introduction. I am sure none of the Church Officials were fooled for a minute that the missing partner was actually dead but as long as the Church could legitimately say with hand on heart that it BELIEVED it so then a dissolution of marriage was permissible. The Church clearly could not allow or grant a dissolution of a marriage without compromising its own teachings if both the partners were clearly still at large and visible in society or were known to be alive and kicking be they in the Colony or overseas. To do so would then be a Divorce which was not permitted rather then a dissolution which was. Thus by the partners having absolutely no sight of each other or any other form of contact of any kind either directly or indirectly then it was accepted that the missing partner must be deceased otherwise why would a loving partner not make contact with their spouse? Thus the 'surviving' partner was considered a Widow or Widower and could re-marry without incurring the wrath of the Church. I also agree the separation of water for 7 years was also grounds for a dissolution but this also as with the absence clause above carried with it a prerequisite of no contact of any kind whatsoever during that period which again is another convenient way of presuming death and thus freeing the partners to re-marry. I hope we don't get down to a discussion on the finer points of Law - we could be here forever! One cannot be pedantic over interpretations of Law (even today) and we must remain flexible in interpreting perhaps what was INTENDED not necessarily what was actually stated in the statute books. Cheers Ron Phillips Melbourne Vic ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Phillips" <ronphillips@netspace.net.au> To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 11:02 PM Subject: Re: Strange Certificates. > Sounds like the first husband shot through and after 7 years missing was > presumed dead leaving the wife free to remarry. > The JP's ruling was noted on the Records in case the first husband should > happen to turned up again. The notation would then stop the wife from > being charged with bigamy > > Ron Phillips > Melbourne > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "kfarrow" <kcfarrow@bigpond.net.au> > To: <AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 6:35 PM > Subject: Strange Certificates. > > >> Dear All, I have a family from Scotland who went to Steiglitz goldmining, >> and had several children. The woman then has children to another man . >> Her marriage certificate said "the above Elizabeth Rankin has been away >> from her former husband seven years and having obtained the advice of a >> Justice of the Peace, received information tha it was lawful to marry >> again after this period. Left her ior deceased on February 18th 1858. >> Has anyone had this on a Marriage certificate? >> Regards Chris Farrow >> >> >> >> ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== >> Victorian place names database >> http://www.rootsweb.com/~auswgw/vic_place_names.htm >> > > > ==== AUS-VIC-GOLDFIELDS Mailing List ==== > Support RootsWeb and help it support genealogy > http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html >