I have a copy of the Refusal for marriage that I will upload, in the meantime, the following outlines my views on Hannah's marital status up to the time of her Cert. of Freedom in 1834
The Marital Status of Hannah Wright at the time of Transportation
There is some speculation that Hannah (Worthing) Wright was married before her transportation to Sydney.
This possibly stems from a woman of the same name, Hannah Wright, marrying John Appleby in Stockport on 22 June 1825. This marriage serendipitously matches the birth of Hannah (Worthing) Wright’s first-born son circa Oct. 1825, although this suggests Hannah was 5 mo. pregnant at the time, if they are the same person. Further, the marriage record of Hannah and John Appleby provides Hannah’s D.O.B as 1794, in Stockport. It may be that Roland Wright, the colloquial father of Hannah (Worthing) Wright, was in fact father to the earlier born Hannah, but no support of this could be found.
John Appleby was a grocer, which makes it difficult to believe that his wife would be into stealing shoes.
Records also show the burial of Hannah Wright on the 31 May 1826, aged 32, which conforms closely to the Hannah Wright that married John Appleby.
There are no other marriages of Hannah Wright that can presently be found.
Hannah (Worthing) Wright was convicted of her 3rd case of felony on the 9th Jan. 1827. Her second child, Martha, was born in the Chester gaol, and was baptised in gaol on April 18th 1827. On Martha’s baptismal record, Hannah is stated as ‘spinster’.
It is most unlikely that authorities would allow Hannah to marry prior to transportation, and that her status of ‘spinster’ continued until her arrival in Sydney.
The simplest, and most likely explanation for Hannah’s surname ‘Wright’ is that this was her maiden name, (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/49...), however there is the matter of a refused permission for her marriage to John Hall in 1830, on the basis that on arrival into the Colony she had stated she was married.
Hannah’s surname “Wright” continued to be used up to the time of her Cert. of Freedom in 1834, viz:
• On assignment to the Parramatta Female Factory in 1828, and
• Again, in the Factory in 1829,
• Refused marriage permission in 1830
• On her first T.O.L. in 1832, and
• On her final Cert. of Freedom in 1834
Hannah faced a conundrum that was similar for many convict women………………It was a much better outcome for female convicts to state they were single or widowed, as on marriage, they would be released to the assignment of their husbands, and in general could live a relatively ‘free’ life without the continual intervention of Gov’t. Authorities, and free of the risks posed by other men. (1) Many women who were married yet separated by transportation also professed to be single until research by Authorities found otherwise (and which was usually contained in the details of their trial).
So why would Hannah state she was married on arrival? It is probable to protect the status of her two children, and avoid them being ‘branded’ as ‘bastards’, with the notoriety that this label brought.
In reality, there was no other option for Hannah given she had two dependent children with her. This ‘marriage’ declaration, however, consigned Hannah to serve her full sentence under Government ‘supervision’, and to this end she is noted as Hannah Wright until her Cert. of Freedom.
Hannah’s marriage to John Hall was refused on the basis that she had stated she was married on arrival into Sydney. Once stated, the condition became fact and was duly recorded by Authorities.
(1) A Cargo of Women – Babbette Smith
Follow Us
Like Us
