It is thought Mary RODGERS was born in Dublin, Ireland (1851 English Census), a matching baptismal date has been found but not proven . She possibly travelled to Nova Scotia, Canada on her own and married William ANNETT as there is some confusion as to whether their first child, Mary Jane, was born at Halifax, Yorkshire, ENGLAND, IRELAND (1841 England census) or Halifax, Nova Scotia, CANADA (1851 England census)... to date I have been unable to substantiate or locate any records of Mary and Williams marriage, Mary Janes birth, or documentation pertaining to their travel.
If Mary did travel to Canada, she had returned to William's home at Seven Oaks in Kent, ENGLAND before the birth of her second child in 1838.
Mary and William produced seven children:
Mary Jane ANNETT (f) born 1835 Ireland/Canada/England.
William ANNETT (m) born April 1839, Seal, Kent, England.
Frances ANNETT (f) born December 1840, Seven Oaks, Kent, England.
James ANNETT (m) born 1842, Seven Oaks, Kent, England.
Henry ANNETT (m) born 05 July 1845, Seven Oaks, England
George ANNETT (m) born 1846, Kemsing, Kent, England
John ANNETT (m) born 24 November 1848, Kemsing, Kent, England
William ANNETT (m) born April 1839, Seal, Kent, England.
Frances ANNETT (f) born December 1840, Seven Oaks, Kent, England.
James ANNETT (m) born 1842, Seven Oaks, Kent, England.
Henry ANNETT (m) born 05 July 1845, Seven Oaks, England
George ANNETT (m) born 1846, Kemsing, Kent, England
John ANNETT (m) born 24 November 1848, Kemsing, Kent, England
More is known of Mary and her family after their emigration aboard the PRIAM which departed Plymouth, England 21 May 1852 and arrived at Portland Bay, Victoria, Australia on 25 August 1852.
On the passenger list, Mary, William and the five youngest children are noted as ANNITT. Her two oldest children travelled separately as young adults and noted correctly as ANNETT.
On the passenger list, Mary, William and the five youngest children are noted as ANNITT. Her two oldest children travelled separately as young adults and noted correctly as ANNETT.
During October- November 1859 Mary appears to be having a rough time with several appearances before the Benevolent Society requesting financial assistance due to domestic abuse.
To date, nothing more has been found regarding Mary until January 1884 when she was admitted to the Benevolent Society Asylum. She passed away there 03 April 1884. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article63343107
Ultimately, both Mary and William would live their final days as guests of the Portland Benevolent Asylum and Hospital, passing eight months apart. Buried at the same cemetery but in different sections. Mary is Buried in the Roman Catholic sector of South (Old) Portland Cemetery, grave 37, Portland, Victoria, Australia. Her grave is unmarked with peg number 405, it is situated second last in section3
Descriptive excerpt (with references) using some poetic licence -Corrinne :
Mary had to approached the Benevolent Asylum for assistance[1]. That had not been an easy time but there was no other option. Using every penny of her meagre hidden cache to flee her abusive husband and in fear for her life, she had arrived distraught and disheveled, at her oldest daughters place thirty-four miles away. The only chance and indeed possibility was to apply for relief until she could get on her feet...
But life and acceptable practice were so different then. Even with a letter from the Superintendent of Police giving an unfavourable account of her husband[2] Mary was not considered a ‘fit subject for relief’ and the seven pound a week she was temporarily granted was withdrawn five weeks later[3].
Another twenty-five years, again relying on the charity of the Portland Benevolent Asylum and Hospital, she entered the foreboding building with trepidation and reignited memories. Except for a short episode of absconding[4], this time Mary ANNETT would only leave in a hearse[5].
Another twenty-five years, again relying on the charity of the Portland Benevolent Asylum and Hospital, she entered the foreboding building with trepidation and reignited memories. Except for a short episode of absconding[4], this time Mary ANNETT would only leave in a hearse[5].
Again relying on the charity of the Portland Benevolent Asylum and Hospital, she entered the foreboding building with trepidation and reignited memories. Except for a short episode of absconding [4], this time Mary ANNETT would only leave in a hearse [5].
Twenty-five years earlier Mary had approached them for assistance [1]. That had not been an easy time but there was no other option. Using every penny of her meagre hidden cache to flee her abusive husband and in fear for her life, she had arrived distraught and disheveled, at her oldest daughters place thirty-four miles away .
Daughter Mary-Jane had been married four years and was already expecting the third child. Although her husband was a good man he couldn’t afford to support his wife’s mother and three youngest brothers too.
The only chance and indeed possibility was to apply for relief until she could get on her feet. But life and acceptable practice were so different then. Even with a letter from the Superintendent of Police giving an unfavourable account of her husband [2], Mary was not considered a ‘fit subject for relief’ and the seven pound a week she was temporarily granted was withdrawn five weeks later [3].
"It was terrible embarrassing having all the private business plastered throughout the local paper for all to see ... and William made sure I would never do that again!"
Twenty-five years earlier Mary had approached them for assistance [1]. That had not been an easy time but there was no other option. Using every penny of her meagre hidden cache to flee her abusive husband and in fear for her life, she had arrived distraught and disheveled, at her oldest daughters place thirty-four miles away .
Daughter Mary-Jane had been married four years and was already expecting the third child. Although her husband was a good man he couldn’t afford to support his wife’s mother and three youngest brothers too.
The only chance and indeed possibility was to apply for relief until she could get on her feet. But life and acceptable practice were so different then. Even with a letter from the Superintendent of Police giving an unfavourable account of her husband [2], Mary was not considered a ‘fit subject for relief’ and the seven pound a week she was temporarily granted was withdrawn five weeks later [3].
"It was terrible embarrassing having all the private business plastered throughout the local paper for all to see ... and William made sure I would never do that again!"
[1] Trove: Portland Guardian and Normandy General Advertiser. 17 October 1859.
[2] Trove: Portland Guardian and Normandy General Advertiser. 14 November 1859.
[3] Trove: Portland Guardian and Normandy General Advertiser. 21 November 1859.
[4] Trove: Portland Guardian. Saturday 26 January 1884.
[5] Trove: Portland Guardian. Tuesday 15 July 1884.
