With the Prompt for this week's writing challenge being Where there's a Will.... the choice as usual was to use it however we were inspired to. Maybe we had come across an interesting Will. Explain it to a non-genealogist. What story does it reveal? We could write about an ancestor who was determined to do something. (Or maybe you have an ancestor named Will!)
_______
I knew from the moment I saw this prompt many weeks ago, what I would write about.
Captain Thomas Rowley died on 27th May 1806.[1] He left named in his Will, his pardoned convict partner Elizabeth Selwyn and five children.[2]
Thomas arrived in Australia on 14 February 1792 after a perilous journey lasting just over 6 months. On the same ship convict Elizabeth Selwyn who had been transported for 7 years also disembarked. She is listed being assigned to Lieutenant Rowley as a housekeeper.[3]
Nine months and five days later Elizabeth gave birth to their first child. Another four children were to be born to this pair in the next eleven years.
Thomas and Elizabeth never married. Elizabeth received an Absolute Pardon in 1794.[4]
The Will is a very long hand written document and can be viewed on Ancestry in full.[5]
The next two paragraphs below, transcribed from Thomas’ Will have always sparked my interest.
In another section of the Will it states
There are so many questions that this Will invokes.
Does the fact that Thomas openly acknowledged his relationship with Elizabeth, show a deeper feeling for her?
I would like to think that it does. He died at his property and Elizabeth was still with him at his death.
Why did he never marry her?
Although there are reports of officers marrying convicts, it probably wasn’t widely acceptable. Whereas living in a de facto relationship doesn’t seem to have raised many eyebrows!
But the fact does remain that he didn’t marry her after her pardon either?
But she stayed with him.
Did she have a choice? I doubt it? It would not have been easy to bring up children as a single mother. There is also the possibility that she loved him or was just simply content with her lot.
Why did he put the stipulation that she not co-habitate with anyone? Was it because he was jealous of her living with anyone else? Or did he just not want another man having access to his wealth and property after his death?
What I do know is that Elizabeth was still unmarried at the time of her death in 1843.[6] She was living with her daughter and son-in-law in 1828 and listed herself on a census as Betsey Rowley and a widow.[7] Did she feel she had earned the title of Mrs Rowley after so many years?
I haven’t found any evidence of another partner for her, after Thomas died. Either way she remained unattached for 37 years before her death. But if she did indeed find another man, she was careful about acknowledging him!
“There is special trust for the benefit of my five natural children begotten on the body of Elizabeth Selwyn namely Isabella Rowley, Thomas Rowley, John Rowley, Mary Rowley and Eliza Rowley and also for the benefit conjunctively and proportionally of the said Elizabeth Selwyn their mother upon these restrictions and conditions herein after mentioned and expressed. And it is my will that my said five natural children above named shall be entitled to and enjoy…”
In another section of the Will it states
“And it is my wish and desire that so long as this said Elizabeth Selwyn shall continue sole and unmarried and does not live in a state of cohabitation with any man that she be entitled to and receive one sixth share of the rents, produce and interest of my said Estates and Effects from year to year, the same being into six equal shares arranged and proportioned for her maintenance and support from any said executors in common with the survivors which will of course determine the number of shares or proportions to make them equal amongst all…”
There are so many questions that this Will invokes.
Does the fact that Thomas openly acknowledged his relationship with Elizabeth, show a deeper feeling for her?
I would like to think that it does. He died at his property and Elizabeth was still with him at his death.
Why did he never marry her?
Although there are reports of officers marrying convicts, it probably wasn’t widely acceptable. Whereas living in a de facto relationship doesn’t seem to have raised many eyebrows!
But the fact does remain that he didn’t marry her after her pardon either?
But she stayed with him.
Did she have a choice? I doubt it? It would not have been easy to bring up children as a single mother. There is also the possibility that she loved him or was just simply content with her lot.
Why did he put the stipulation that she not co-habitate with anyone? Was it because he was jealous of her living with anyone else? Or did he just not want another man having access to his wealth and property after his death?
What I do know is that Elizabeth was still unmarried at the time of her death in 1843.[6] She was living with her daughter and son-in-law in 1828 and listed herself on a census as Betsey Rowley and a widow.[7] Did she feel she had earned the title of Mrs Rowley after so many years?
I haven’t found any evidence of another partner for her, after Thomas died. Either way she remained unattached for 37 years before her death. But if she did indeed find another man, she was careful about acknowledging him!
__________
1 Ancestry.com. Australia and New Zealand, Find A Grave Index, 1800s-Current [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012.
1 Ancestry.com. Australia and New Zealand, Find A Grave Index, 1800s-Current [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2012.
2 Ancestry.com. London, England, Wills and Probate, 1507-1858 [database on-line].Provo,UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc 2011. www.ancestry.com.au/interactive/1704/31787 A037132-00202
3 Ancestry.com. New South Wales and Tasmania, Australia Convict Musters, 1806- 1849 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2007. Original data: Home Office: Settlers and Convicts, New South Wales and Tasmania; (The National Archives Microfilm Publication HO10, Pieces 5, 19-20, 32-51); The National Archives of the UK (TNA), Kew, Surrey, England. Retrieved May 20 2016
4 Ancestry.com. New South Wales, Australia, Convict Registers of Conditional and Absolute Pardons, 1788-1870 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2009. Original data:
5 Ancestry.com. London, England, Wills and Probate, 1507-1858 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2011.Original data: London, England, Wills and Probate. London, England: London Metropolitan Archives and Guildhall Library Manuscripts. Images produced by permission of the City of London Corporation Libraries, Archives. Retrieved June 10 2016.
6 Ancestry.com. Australia, Death Index, 1787-1985 [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2010. Original data: Compiled from publicly available sources. Retrieved June 1 2016.
7 Ancestry.com. 1828 New South Wales, Australia Census (Australian Copy) [database on-line]. Provo, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations Inc, 2007. Original data: New South Wales Government. 1828 Census: Householders’ returns [Population and Statistics, Musters and Census Records, Census, Colonial Secretary] . Series 1273, Reels 2551-2552, 2506-2507. State Records Authority of New South Wales. Kingswood, New South Wales, Australia. Retrieved June 10 2016.
No comments:
Post a Comment