Cross-overs between two lines?

Most "Mexicans" wouldn't like to admit that they were once part of NSW.

 

To be fair Alexander's 'here' link ended up at the same site once I had followed through with a new search. But thanks anyway.

 

Even a side door sometimes leads to the front door as yours did

 

Explain please Margery

 

Great News and thanks to the new Australian archive sites provided, I found one record of great interest regarding my ancestor George Westbury. It was in NSW State Records in the 'Index to Convict Exiles, 1846-1850' I came across my ancestor listed as George Westbury -aged 24 (on arrival in Australia) and identified by the ship, place, date of trial and charge- and then under 'Remarks'....."Recommended for conditional pardon". I also learned under a generic heading that most who served their term, or were pardoned were re-settled in Port Philip, NSW.

This explains why the information is under NSW State Records because -as remarked on previously - the state of Victoria was only officially recognised in 1853. I wonder what earned him the recommendation and doubt will ever find out but it was nice to learn it happened relatively early on in his sentence.

 

I thought along the same lines but had second thoughts when I discovered during my new researching an even more amazing fact that New Zealand also came under Australia (as a continent) and administratively under NSW before becoming an independent territory (country). I think the year was 1851 so two years before Victoria followed suit.

I know for a fact whilst over in Australia that there exists as sort of what I would describe as a 'friendly' love hate relationship between the two countries, where Ozzies mimic the NZ dialect, and wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happened in reverse. But will wait to hear if you have hit the nail on the head Alexander.

 

Your poor ancestor, Alexander. The following quotation is from The Fatal Shore (which I recommended earlier): "... the cat o'nine tails, whose whistle and dull crack were as much a part of the aural background to Australian life as the kookaburra's laugh." In the early days convicts could get as many as 500 lashes, time and time again if they didn't learn their lesson. Later the number was reduced to anything from 25 to 100 or, for particularly intransigent convicts, 150 lashes. But in case you're thinking that made life easier, here's another quotation: " Even 25 lashes (known as a tester or a Botany Bay dozen) was a draconic torture, able to skin a man's back and leave it a tangled web of criss-crossed knotted scars."

 

Lets hope it wasn't 'catching' DNA wise

 

According to Wikipedia, the Treaty of Waitangi was first signed on 6 February 1840 and then in 1841 the sub-colony of NSW became the Colony of New Zealand. Even now, there are various differences of opinion as to just what the treaty meant/included.

New Zealand became a self-governing colony in 1853 following the passage of the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, which established responsible** government in the colony.

** Reminds me of being a responsible person when employed, "if anything goes wrong, I'm responsible!".

A bit like the relationship between England and Scotland?

 

I've been here (Victoria) since 1977 and I've never heard that one before Margery.

 

I have never thought of it as a pejorative term rather a capricious Aussie reference to anyone "south of the border" all meant in good humour (and accepted as such by the Victorians). There are absolutely no racial connotations intended.

 

I understand that there were two copies of the Treaty, one in English and one in Maori which (apparently) was not an exact translation. Do you know of this, Bryman?

 

I believe that there were/are nine copies of the treaty, taken to different parts of the country for Maori chiefs to sign. Each copy had both English and Maori text but subsequent scholars have debated whether the Maori version was understood by Maori to have the same meaning as the English, particularly with respect to sovereignty. At that time, Maori was mainly a spoken language rather than written.

The contents of the treaty were quite short but at one point refer to the Maori taonga (property or valued possessions) which are now claimed to include such things as the water in rivers and the radio spectrum. Very difficult to be fair to everyone, especially after 175 years.

 

The Maori did not have a word for sovereignty, so the translator used the word for governance. There was also another translation problem, but I can't remember the exact details. It was only yesterday we visited Waitangi!