Allen & Unwin's distributors have stumbled upon a dozen copies of the "large paperback" version of An Irresistible Temptation (thought to have been sold out three years ago) so for the moment I have copies of all three of my books in this large paperback size. As it makes a neat set, I am selling them as a set: Captain Thunderbolt and his Lady (2011), Breaking the Bank (2008) and An Irresistible Temptation (2006). The normal retail price would be $101 but I am selling all three for $90 plus postage (see Book Orders). Stocks are LIMITED.
|
Born in Wilberforce – or maybe Windsor. Born in 1833 or 1834 or 1835 or 1836 or even 1839. Born to Michael and Sophia Ward … or to his “sister” … or to a military officer and “adopted” by the Ward family. How does the ordinary reader know which claim is true? The answer lies in my previous posts: ignore the claims and examine the evidence.
When we do so, we discover that the evidence clearly shows that Fred was born in 1835 (see When was Frederick Ward born?). It also shows that he was born either at Windsor, New South Wales, or around the time his parents moved from Wilberforce to Windsor leading him to believe that he was born in Windsor (see Where was Frederick Ward born?). The evidence also shows that Fred was the youngest child of convict Michael Ward (aka Hanley Thompson Ward) and his wife Sophia (see Who were Frederick Ward's parents?). Yet one family historian, Barry Sinclair, claims that Fred was not the son of Michael and Sophia Ward, but of their daughter Sarah Ann Ward (see Sinclair's Credentials). Sinclair’s only “evidence” – as he admits – is that Mary Ann Bugg listed Fred’s age as 28 on their daughter’s birth certificate in 1861, leading him to conclude that Fred could not have been Michael and Sophia Ward’s child because they gave birth to another child in 1833. Significantly, however, Fred did not himself register his daughter’s birth because he was in gaol at that time. In fact in November 1861, two weeks after his daughter’s birth, he told the Darlinghurst Gaol authorities that he was aged “26”, not 28 – information from the horse’s own mouth, so to speak. This indicates that he was actually born around 1835, not 1833, as the other information provided by himself and his parents confirms. So, not only is there no evidence showing that Fred was Sarah Ann Ward’s son, there is irrefutable evidence showing that he wasn’t Sarah’s son (see Was Frederick Ward the son of his "sister"?). Strangely, after the obvious conclusions are mentioned, some people say “so it is your belief that Fred was the son of Michael and Sophia Ward” or “so it is your opinion that Fred Ward was not the son of Sarah Ann Ward”. It is important to note that a person can “believe” in a religion or have an “opinion” about a political party and that they can change their belief or opinion at any time. However, to state the blindingly obvious, a person cannot be born at two different times to two different sets of parents. Nor does that person's birth or parentage change simply because one person wants to believe differently. Beliefs and opinions are irrelevant. All that matters is the evidence. And the evidence clearly shows that Fred Ward was born in 1835 to Michael and Sophia Ward around the time that they moved from Wilberforce to Windsor. But don’t just believe this blog post. This website is all about evidence and historical transparency. Check out the evidence by reading the hyperlinked myth-debunking articles which contain copies of relevant original records. Determine the truth for yourself. Many of the claims made about Thunderbolt and Mary Ann are the product of “family stories” according to those who have previously taken control of Thunderbolt’s and Mary Ann’s stories and steered them in their own direction. These amateur family historians invoke “family story” as if it is an inviolate truth. “We know our own family history!” they say indignantly if anyone questions their claims.
As a simple response, I would like to remind readers of the many people who believed their grandparents to be their parents and only discovered the truth when they purchased their own birth certificate. Or the many people who supposedly arrived in Australia as “remittance men” or “free immigrants” but proved to be convicts. Families have secrets and agendas, and the truth regularly goes by the wayside when family members are pursuing an agenda or covering up an unpalatable truth. Let me mention just one of the many family stories passed down through my own family. This one was included in a hand-written family history produced in the late 1800s or early 1900s. It claimed that my great-great-grandmother was the granddaughter of “Count Fabian of the celebrated Italian Fabians”. New to research when I was given the manuscript, I wrote to the Italian consulate asking about the Fabian family and received the reply that I would need to provide specific names and dates. Duly rebuked, I continued my research. Eventually I discovered that the alleged Italian Count Fabian was in fact Thomas Fabian, a hairdresser from Portsmouth! Have I made my point? Family stories are a form of “hearsay” evidence. Hearsay evidence is rarely accepted in a court of law because the person who made the original claim cannot be questioned to determine their truthfulness. Inevitably, most family stories have been distorted by time, the historical version of Chinese whispers. Sometimes the story was deliberately crafted by a family member for their own purposes and perpetuated by descendants who believed that “Grandpa” would never tell a lie. Except for some rare instances, family stories should be accepted as historical evidence only if there is primary-source evidence to back up the story. If the evidence refutes the story, then the wise family historian accepts the evidence rather than continuing to blindly believe the family story. However some family historians become so caught up in the romance or lustre of their family’s history that they refuse to accept that a family story or claimed ancestry is wrong even when there is a wealth of evidence proving so. The link with “fame” has been absorbed into their sense of self-worth. Ego has become more important than evidence. One family historian I encountered had “firstfleeter” as her personal email address. How do you think she would react if anyone said “I’m sorry but you are not descended from a First Fleeter!” It would be like accidentally prodding a viper. Such is the case with Thunderbolt and Mary Ann. Challenging the myths and family stories has proved the equivalent of prodding a whole nest of vipers! But evidence has a voice of its own, and when it finds the right stage it cannot be silenced no matter how loud the boos from those who don’t want to hear it. This website offers the evidence a permanent stage. So many claims have been made about Frederick Ward and Mary Ann Bugg that the ordinary person is left floundering. Who should you believe?
Should you believe the statements found in the majority of Thunderbolt publications? Perhaps you haven’t heard the adage “history doesn’t repeat itself, historians repeat each other”. The laziest historians are those who repeat others – and somehow end up repeating other lazy historians who themselves hadn’t bothered doing any real research. And the incorrect claims seem to spread faster than the correct ones, no doubt because the odds of randomly picking the incorrect information from, say, four contenders (three incorrect and one correct) are much larger than picking the correct information. That’s the way many Thunderbolt writers seem to have approached the task of “researching” this famous bushranger so you can imagine the disastrous results! Should you believe the lone voice? Sometime the lone voice is indeed the source of truth. On the other hand the lone voice can be a crackpot with a personal agenda. Should you believe the person who shouts the loudest? These people are often the most passionate, but passion does not imply accuracy – indeed, quite the opposite in many instances. Passion tends to reflect an agenda, and agenda-driven research can blind the researcher to the truth. The more dispassionate the researcher, the more likely the result will be accurate. So let’s ignore all the claims and counter-claims, all the passions and beliefs and myths and fancies, and explore the actual evidence. Because the historical detective does not listen to the claims of others, but instead assesses the available evidence to determine the truth. |
'Bolt & Bugg BlogGreetings all. It's time to blog about Fred and Mary Ann. My website is now so large it is almost overwhelming so I decided to add a blog to make it easier for users and also interractive. Additionally, much is happening and more is to come ... so stayed tuned. You can use the RSS Feed below to be alerted when new posts are added. Enjoy! Archives
September 2014
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed