nathanielresearch

These notes are recorded for the purpose of ensuring that possible conclusions are not overlooked nor forgotten. These are research theories that have many weaknesses, but yet have some incoherent facts that in some way point in certain directions.

I am convinced that Nathaniel Lucas' parents were John Lucas and Mary Bradford. The middle name Bradford was given to one of his son William's children, James, who was the only one given a second name. The use of surnames as second names usually occurred in that period where the name was either the mother's widen name or one of the parents' mother's names, most often it was the father's. A marriage of a John Lucas to a Mary Bradford did occur in 1748 near Thames Ditton.

A check of the Thames Ditton Parish Registers indicates the possibility of two Lucas families. This is based on the fact that there were two baptisms of sons named John, sons of Johns, baptised within about a year of each other. This, of course, could be deceiving. Baptisms were usually celebrated when the child was between the age of two and three. The first child may have died after the Baptism and a later birth occurred with the Christian name repeated. It was quite common for this to happen and actually did occur in Nathaniel's own family (two Marys and Sarahs).

There was one other thing. The names of the fathers were differently recorded. One simply said "John Lucas". The other said "Col. John Lukass". A record of Nathaniel signing his name Nathaniel Lukass has been found. The fact is that such a person as Col. John Lukass did exist and did reside in Thames Ditton.

Col. Lukass was born in Sweden into an aristocratic family. In the 1730's, he became embroiled in a dispute over an estate and under a death threat, he fled Sweden. A description of Nathaniel has been found too. He had blonde, wavy hair and blue eyes. This is not characteristic of many of the descriptions of British Convicts.

A researcher seeking information about Nathaniel's family from the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages actually advised this information separately. Unfortunately, the papers were destroyed. There are separate literary references to similar data in another context, mentioned later.

Another point is that Nathaniel said in his letter to his father in 1796, "Remember me to my brothers and sisters". All the baptismal entries of the Parish of Thames Ditton between 1749 to 1760 reveal only one set of parents, John and Mary, Lucas. There were males and females. If there was another family there at the time, then why aren't their children mentioned? I suggest this was the only family there at the time.

Nathaniel's eldest son was named William Nathaniel. Is it possible that this was Nathaniel's actual name? A William Lucas was baptised in 1754, the year of Nathaniel's birth. Is this Nathaniel's baptism? The use of second names in preference to the first was not unusual then, nor is it now.

The late author, Margaret Trist, nee Lucas, had an intimate knowledge of the Lucas family. She said that she got her information from her grandfather, William George Lucas. All her information was checked out. It has since emerged that she was wrong on only one point. She believed that her grandfather was William, son of William Lucas and Sarah Squire. There was such a child, but there is no evidence that he survived infancy. In any event, William George was the son of William Lucas and Esther Mercer (Father Therry's Register). 'This was an English migrant couple who arrived in 1829. Their son was born in what is now Lucas Heights ("on the Woronora"), where his father operated a wheelwright business. SAG have some information about this man (see their primary records and general indexes).

William Lucas and Esther Mercer came from Thames Ditton. He was born there in 1797, son of a William Lucas.

The interesting thing about Mrs. Trist's information is that she got it from a man who had lived in Goondiwindi since he was a youth. He was raised in Lucas Heights (provable) and the family moved to Raymond Terrace when he was about eight, where his father worked for the Tooth family. Mrs. Tooth's maiden name was Lucas. His father died in 1844, and he moved on when his mother remarried, because he could not get on with his step father. That man could only have got the information from his family, definitely not from a library in Goondiwindi.

Mrs. Trist added other information, some of which is not recorded and therefore, could not have been researched from available records. Following through her leads, some additional information was in fact located which added credibility to her grandfather's recall.

She said that Nathaniel committed suicide because he was dying. She said he was suffering from cancer of the mouth, but as he was financially broke, he had to keep working. He was a teetotaller up until months before his death, and took to alcohol as an analgesic. His pain was so great that he could not avoid alcohol. Greenway actually said that in the days before his suicide, Nathaniel was stupefied continuously by alcohol. He said he found him in a private home the day before his death almost unconscious from drunkenness.

Mrs. Trist mentioned that Olivia accused Greenway of murder over Nathaniel's death. The examination of papers written by Greenway and still extant in the State Archives, clearly indicates that severe aspersions were cast upon him over the incident. Greenway, in defending his treatment of Nathaniel as a poor builder, protested that Nathaniel was no worse treated by him than other colonial builders.

Mrs. Trist said that the marriage broke down and that Olivia walked out on him. She could no longer tolerate his drunkenness and had sought refuge with her sons in Tasmania.

She maintained that Nathaniel was from an affluent family. Whilst it was held that Nathaniel was innocent of the charge for which he was convicted, he had been in similar trouble before. He said at his trial that his father and his Master were expected to attend. It is obvious that they did not. Firstly, he did not have a Master. Nathaniel was nineteen years of age at the time-, and as the Apprenticeship ages then were thirteen to sixteen, he was what was called a journeyman. His recorded occupation confirms this. However, he could have been expecting his former Master to act as a Referee. His father, it was claimed, believed that he would be found guilty because of his past demeanours. His father was disgusted with him and disowned him.

She believed that the surviving letter was delivered by Lt. King, but Nathaniel's father had died shortly before he arrived.

I believe that the letter was not written by Nathaniel. The hand writing is one of two instances where Nathaniel "wrote" in this style. This was the first, the second was in the memorial to Macquarie for the Minto land. The signature on both documents are the same and are also consistent with his signature for receipting transactions on Norfolk Island.

However, there are a number of faults with the grammar, content and other comparable documents, which clearly indicate that he definitely did not write the letter.

On page twelve of Nathaniel and Olivia is the copy of the letter to his father (Note that he does not refer to his mother whom he actually cherished, yet, he sent her money often). The hand writing is the same as on page fourteen (top) yet the signatures are very different. In fact, the contrast in style is very distinct inthe page fourteen sample. Five other samples of Nathaniel-'s handwriting were found in Macquarie's papers. They all have the signature shown on page fourteen. All show a much rougher handwriting style to the letter to Nathaniel's father. The contents reveal a typical tradesman with strong, firm but polite approach.

Both the letter to his father and the memorial were written as if someone was whinging and grovelling. The important aspect of the letter is that the letter hardly mentions what Nathaniel was really doing with himself. Here he was, the Superintendent of Carpenters, putting up buildings and houses, and he talks about growing tomatoes and bana>

Transfer interrupted!

awing pieces of wood and knew about growing tomatoes...Olivia. If she wrote the letter,. and I believe she did, she wrote the letter from her perspective. Five years after the death of her twins, she is still pining as if it just happened. Nathaniel negligently killed those children. I do not think he would want to advertise what happened. Olivia’s hurt, on the other hand, would be impossible for any mother to hide.

Note that Nathaniel sent his mother money regularly. He sent nothing to his father. I believe that he loathed his father for not standing by him at his trial. (As William named one of his sons James Bradford Lucas, it seem Nathaniel must have talked about her a lot. Incidentally, Mary Bradford's parents were James Bradford and Mary Dalton.) Olivia wrote the letter because she expected Nathaniel to return to England on a visit, and she wanted Nathaniel to go home with his head high and be welcomed back by his family, which had rejected him in his time of need. The message reeks of "I've beaten the bastards and I am now somebody rather than the failure you abandoned". There is a strong tinge of pride in the letter. A Colonial Governor would have been a highly prestigious office in England, and to have such a man deliver a letter personally would have been a real punch in the guts for his father.

The letter has now been examined by experts and they have concluded that the writing and the contents are that of a woman. A sample of Olivia’s handwriting has not been found in the Tasmania Archives. It is a memorial written in 1824, six years after Nathaniel's death. Given that Olivia was sixty-four years of age at the time, at which age handwriting normally deteriorates, that handwriting is deemed to be the same as the letter to Nathaniel's father and the memorial.

Mrs. Trist mentioned the accident which killed the twins. Her story varies a little from recorded references, but there seems to be two records at least which refer to it. Her story was that Nathaniel deliberately set fire to a tree near their home on Norfolk Island. Olivia was feeding William at the time. The twins were also in the house. Anne and Nathaniel were not there. Nathaniel had estimated that the tree would fall in a certain direction. As the tree began to weaken from the fire, a gust of wind of enormous force suddenly developed and pushed the tree in another direction, and onto the house. The twins were killed instantly. Olivia "broke every bone in her body". The latter is obviously an exaggeration. King recorded that she broke her arm in two places. However, a surviving record is held which indicated that Olivia walked like a semi-cripple in her later life.

Olivia’s conviction appears to have been very unfair. The view was that Olivia was a servant (not a maid) in the manor house of an estate at Severn Stoke. She was a very attractive woman and it appears that she resisted the advances of her employer. He punished her by accusing her of a minor theft. Whilst a conviction was recorded, Olivia got off. Vindictively, she got a gang of friends together and raided the home of the man concerned to seek compensation for the gross indignities he incurred. Unfortunately, one of her friends pulled a pistol out (it was not Olivia. who used the gun), and they took property to satisfy the compensation. If it was a genuine robbery, such an estate would have had much more for five people to walk out the door with in their hands. Whilst the amount concerned was large for the day, spread over the five of them it would not have justified the risks involved.

The puzzling thing about the case is that Olivia and her friends were sentenced to death. There are no records of the other's fates. They were not transported. Perhaps they were hanged. However, ,her sentence was commuted to only seven years' transportation. This suggests that she got off the second charge entirely (cases involving capital punishment sentences were reviewed before execution). The first conviction may have resulted in a suspended sentence and as she had broken, say, rules of parole, as in the second offence, she had to face the original sentence. A parallel can be made with James Squire's situation, which follows this scenario. Actually, in the first fleet, there were about twenty seemingly paroled people called up to complete their transportation sentences. Most were assigned to the "Friendship" first.

The recall of Olivia was one of a very tough, hard lady. Mrs. Trist claimed that when William died she threw his widow, Sarah, and their children, out on the street, destitute. The eldest son, George, ran away rather than face an orphanage. In all fairness to Olivia, it appears that she was also desperate, too. It seems that she was living with the help of John and William's death financially devastated John (John was prosecuted by the British Auditor General over a business deal involving William and himself -- some of the papers are held in the Mitchell Library and were still active in 1844, seventeen years later).

Mrs. Trist said that her grandfather's parents were staying with John at the time (on the Woronora). She said that Sarah and three of her children (not George) moved in with her sister, Mary Anne Farnell, after this. Mrs. Farnell threw William's family out too. Surviving records prove this. The odd part about this is that Willian's daughter, Martha, who lived in the orphanage for four years, wrote, in two letters to her mother, which are held in the Mitchell Library (Goodin Papers ... Manuscripts A), in a tone as if there were good relations between Mary Anne Farnell and her sister, Sarah Lucas. Perhaps Mary Ann's husband was seriously ill at the time (he died shortly afterwards) and she could not cope with the extra problem .

On William's death, she said, William had got drunk in a pub on a Sydney wharf and got shanghaied onto a ship. When he sobered up, he attacked the Captain and tried to force the ship to turn around as it was sailing for the Heads. The Captain killed him and tossed his body overboard. She said that John offered a reward for information.

A family record written down by William's granddaughter, Sarah Jane Goodin (1846-1946), who Mrs. Trist would never have known, confirmed her story. She wrote "William Nathaniel Lucas drowned in Parsley Bay, Sydney. His body was not recovered." The offer of a reward was found. It was an advertisement placed in The Australian on 27th July, 1828. The advertisement clearly indicates that suspicious circumstances were involved.

It is puzzling to find that Coroner's reports still exist for almost all deaths by accident or murder since 1788, yet, the files on both Nathaniel and William are not held nor even mentioned in indexes. However, Mary Anne Farnell's son, James Squire Farnell, did become Prime Minister of New South Wales (1877). He was also a Trustee of William's grandson's estate (John Andrew Goodin) and William’s son-in-law's estate (William Goodin). Much of the estates never reached certain beneficiaries (John Goodin's children). Farnell lost office in a Parliamentary spill which followed suspicious arising from land sale dealings.

She maintained that Nathaniel was from an affluent family. Whilst it was held that Nathaniel was innocent of the charge for which he was convicted, he had been in similar trouble before. He said at his trial that his father and his Master were expected to attend. It is obvious that they did not. Firstly, he did not have a Master. Nathaniel was nineteen years of age at the time and as the Apprenticeship ages then were thirteen to sixteen, he was what was called a journeyman. His recorded occupation confirms this. However, he could have been expecting his former Master to give a character reference. His father, it was claimed, believed that he would be found guilty because of his past demeanours. His father was disgusted with Nathaniel and disowned him.

Mrs. Trist spoke of William as an evil man. As a boy on Norfolk Island, he was quite a villain and did much to upset the routine on the Island. She said that he was trainedas a sailor and made a point of the fact that he went everywhere as a crewman. There is actually no record of him being transported anywhere, yet he had to travel to reach the varied destinations where he was located. It is noted that almost all the boys on Norfolk Island were similarly trained and similarly absent from transport records.

The Church of England has since transferred their Orphanage records to the State Archives. Those records, which Mrs. Trist could never have seen, indicate that Mary Anne Farnell threw the family out on the street. It was implied that Olivia and the other Lucas' rejected her. With no means of support, Mr. Thomas Farnell handed Martha and James Bradford over to the Orphanage. Only the infant Nathaniel was kept by Sarah.

George was mentioned with the remark "Male O.I' is noted George was never in the Orphanage. George, who was sixteen at the time, was over age for the orphanage (14). He was obviously an employee.

Sarah eventually got employment with Elias Stranger (1828 Census) next door neighbour of the Goodins. She had an affair with a convict, Charles Turtle, with whom she had another child the following year. She later married Turtle.

All this information was revealed in the orphanage records. Mrs. Trist enjoyed much credibility as far as I am concerned.

A well known painting of James Squire's brewery is published in many books. James Squire was William Lucas' father-in-law. The painting was done in 1791 and usually accredited to Joseph Lycett. In fact the painting was not Lycett's. Lycett signed his paintings, this one isn't signed and also, it is one of a number of paintings which are similar, yet unsigned. Lycett knew Squire ... he said so. I suggest that the painter of this work and the other unsigned paintings of the same style was .......... Jams Squire. Squire, as an artist, could have helped to train Lycett, hence the similarities.

I maintain that the painting was Squire's property up until his death and remained in the family until 1831.
The owner of the painting in 1853 has been identified. The owner was Mrs. Robert Tooth (nee Lucas). How did she get it?

The Squire brewery commenced in 1791. It closed in 1822, when Squire died. His son, James, re-opened it for a while, but it closed again in 1825 when he died. Squire's daughter, Mary Anne (Farnell) re-opened it in 1827 with the help of her husband. Her husband died in 1829 and by 1830 the brewery was again closed.

In 1832, Robert Tooth commenced a new brewery in Ultimo. His success is well recorded. Whilst he was familiar with English brewing, he could not have adopted English brewing methods in Australia. The earlier brewers proved this. The climate was just one of the factors involved. To have been successful so quickly, he must have had the following:

He could not possibly have arrived as a migrant who had actually set out for India and a year later begun such an operation.

I believe that Tooth went to the Squire family and got help. He used Squire's formula, he used the Squire family's network of hops and barley growers, he purchased theSquire plant and equipment and hired their former workers. Then he used the Squire supplied outlets. It also coincides with relatives of the Lucas, Goodins and Squires obtaining liquor licences. My great-grandfather, John Andrew Goodin, studied accountancy when he left school. On graduation, he was employed by Tooth brewery (his mother was William Lucas' daughter, Martha).

I believe that the painting was picked up by the Tooths when they were buying Squire's plant. The painting was donated to the Mitchell Library in 1983, and the Tooth family was clearly identified as the owner. The link between Squire and Tooth is now provable.

The question is now raised as to why Mr. Tooth chose brewing and how he came to be in the direction of the Squires.

In 1829, Robert Tooth left England for India where he hoped to make a new life. On board the ship was a young English lass, Sarah Lucas, who was going to India to visit her father, Colonel John Lucas, a Regimental Commander in the British Army there. Miss Lucas was born in Blackheath, Kent. Blackheath was a British Army town and the base for Army Units raised in Kent. Some years later, Nathaniel’s grandson (son of John),John Lucas, commenced a coal mining company. He called it the Blackheath Coal Company". (It was not mining in Blackheath, New South Wales.)

Miss Lucas' ancestor was...Col. John Lukass of Thames Ditton. Indeed, Tooth's brewery have published a history of the family and actually referred to the Swedish Aristocrat who fled his country.

Mrs. Trist said that Nathaniel's father, John Lucas, died in Maidstone in Kent near Blackheath, and not too far from Thames Ditton. She said that she even knew the exact house where Nathaniel lived there. She said that on her advice a relative had actually gone to the house, which was still standing. The friend, she said, had checked for the owner of the house at about 1760 (Rate Book). It was then owned by a Mr. John Lucas.

Mrs. Trist claimed that Nathaniel’s father) John Lucas, was buried in St. Lawrence's Church Cemetery, Maidstone. She also claimed that some of Nathaniel's brothers migrated to Belfast in Ireland and that one of them was the grandfather of Charles Lucas, who won the first Victoria Cross. Mrs. Trist's daughter visited the cemetery and found the grave of a John Lucas there, who died in 1796, and that grave does also contain the
reimains of Admiral Charles Lucas, V.C., who was originally from ... Belfast. A photograph of Admiral Lucas and Nathaniel's son, Thomas, taken at about the same ages (Charles' photograph is in the Naval Officer's List in the Overseas Room, SAG) shows a striking resemblance between the two men.

In the Tooth history (available at the Society of Australian Genealogists) reference is made to Mrs. Tooth's grand Aunt being the King's mistress. There are cross references to a Charlotte Lucas being the King's mistress (George IV). A Charlotte Lucas was born in Thames Ditton, daughter of John and Mary Lucas (Parish Register). There is a separate reference to the King having a mistress named Fanny Lucas. A Frances Lucas, daughter of a John and Mary Lucas is also recorded in Thames Ditton.

William was held to be the tallest man in the British Empire, and the Duke called in to see William for himself. He stood six feet tall (a rare height in those days); Indeed, there is a photograph of William’s grandson, George Burwood Lucas, who stood six feet, six inches, on page 19 of Nathaniel and Olivia.

A check of convict records of the time indicates that there were bigger men in the colony. Probably about seven convicts were taller. The reason recalled was possibly not true. So why did the Duke call in? The name of the Dukes great-grandfather was .... John Lucas. I suggest that A check of convict records of the time indicates that there were bigger men than William Henry in the he was looking up a relative. Distant perhaps, but a relative never the less. William Henry Lucas was also a Rawley descendant. John Rowley was a colleague of Nicholas Padget Bailey in the New South Wales Corps. A check of the then Duke of Edinburgh's family tree will show that Mr. Bailey (who signed the petition to sack Bligh as did Nathaniel Lucas, too) was related to the Duke's ancestors (refer to family tree of Prince William in SAG).

Bearing in mind that I have written four reconstructions on pre-1820 pioneer families--Norfolk Island, Tasmania, Irish and Catholics. I found a child naming pattern exclusive to Norfolk Island emerged. Whilst I did not do the same for Sydney people (Mutch did), I checked to see if this very distinct pattern occurred there as well. It did not. The pattern is that most of the eldest children of each sex in most of the families who were born on Norfolk Island at the time were given names after their parents.

Among the exception were fifteen families and in most of those, both the eldest of each sex were named William for the son and Anne for the daughter.

Having regard to the unusual naming practices of their children, it appears to me that Nathaniel, and indeed the others who also practiced naming like this, were profound Royalists.

The following families clearly did this:- Williarn Balmain/Margaret Dawson, Ricbard and Hannah Barnes and Mary Anne Watson, Jams Bryan Cullen/Elizabeth Bartlett, Thamas Gay/ Eleanor Wainwright, Robert Hayward/Jane Peck, John Herbert/Hannah Moore, Robert Jillett/ Elizabeth Bradshaw, Nathaniel Lucas/Olivia Gascoigne, John McCloud/Mary Potter, Thomas McCarthy/Mary Smith, Joshua Peck/Mary Frost, William Sherburd/Esther Thornton, Thomas Smith/Catherine Kearnan, Thomas Wright and Elizabeth Fitzgerald.

Nathaniel and Olivia were the first to do this. William and Anne were the revered King and Queen of England at the turn of the seventeenth century. Ships of the era were named after them, and there seems to be deep-rooted schism in society in New South Wales, with one totally supportive of William and Anne. Even the flag of the time was called the "Queen Anne Flag".

In the philosophical base behind the American War of Independence,.this dil&m-a arose. It is general knowledge that the War was fought on the grounds of political representation. The Americans had a problem. The Anericans were required to refer their problems to the Minister of State for the Colonies. It was his decisions which caused the problem in the first place. It then became a matter of getting the policies behind the decisions reviewed. Above him was the Parliament but the Parliament was inert as the King had ass~ much of the powers. Remember that in a democratic society, when the bureaucrats won't listen, you go to your Member of Parliament. If it is an inadequate law blocking remedy you fight to change it. The Americans had virtually nowhere to go.

The American protagonists did go to the Parliament. They found friends in a parliamentary clique which was in the minority. This group were followers of the policies set in place under King William III, which provided Parliamentary leadership. These policies had eroded under George Il.

The American's sympathy base of the minority "opposition" was dominated by Ulsterman, the Masonic movement and Peers with North American interests (King William's military base was Northern Irish). Even in 1760, the House of Lords condemned Earl Ferrers to death for murder (the only time they had done this for a civil crime). The nature of Lord Ferrers' case clearly showed he was insane. All previous State Trials had resulted. in acquittals on the grounds of insanity, some of which were unworthy of this verdict. Earl Ferrers was known to have been insane before his conviction. In fact, the House had debated the matter four years earlier when they passed the Earl and Lady FerrersDivorce Act (1756).

However, Earl Ferrers was the grantee of the American Territory of Massachusetts. He had stood up and fought for American rights in the House, seeking concessions detrimental to the power majority of the House. His execution eliminated a threat ... ten years before the Boston tea party, and Boston was the capital of Massachusetts which he owned. George Washington, the American military leader who defeated the British in the war and became the first President of the United States of America, was Earl Ferrers' cousin.

It is very significant that in one of Washington's most outstanding battle victories, the Battle of Yorktown, the British troops were sent there to fight whilst the ammunition ships were sent to another place hundreds of miles away. The British just did not make a mistake. For that to occur, there must have been a deliberate piece of sabotage at a high level.

The Rev. Roy Hubbard, descendant of first fleeter, Thomas Lucas, discussed the various hypothesis concerning the origins of Thomas in his thesis published in Nathaniel and Olivia. Roy mentions the possibility of Thomas being the son of Antoine and Louisa Lucas who were possibly Huguenots. Is it probable that Antoine was Swedish?

The strong possibility has arisen that Nathaniel was the grandson of Col. John Lukass through his son John. Is it possible that Antoine was Swedish? son, Antoine?

It is interesting to see his reference to the naming of Thomas' grant in Van Diemens Land "Kingston". Roy questioned whether this was because of Kingston on Norfolk Island. In the first settlement on Norfolk Island, there was no such place. Kingston was named in the second settlement in 1825. The town was then called "Sydney" whilst Sydney on the mainland was called "Albion".

It is interesting to note that the city of Kingston, Jamaica, was named Kingston by a man named .... Louis Lucas, who could very well have been another son or grandson of Col. John Lukass.

It is interesting to note that Nathaniel named his youngest son, Thomas. It may have been that he was named after Thomas the Marine.

The name Richard is the only inconsistency between the names given to both family's children. The only grandchild of Nathaniel’s to be named Richard was Thomas.

It is very difficult in the circumstances to accept that Thomas and Nathaniel were not related, even if distantly.

John Gascoigne's mother's maiden name was Olive Partridge. He was Sarah's cousin. (This is mentioned in the Parish Registers for Droitwych. Droitwych is four miles cross-country from Severn Stoke.)

One final point. When John MacArthur returned on the Argo in 1805, he was accompanied by a Miss Penelope Lucas. Miss Lucas assumed appointment as the MacArthur family Nanny. Nannies would have been readily available here in Australia. So why did this woman accompany MacArthur? Was it relatives?

Penelope's will has been checked for clues. She was quite a wealthy woman and left small fortune to her brothers whom she identified (no Nathaniel was not one of the names. Her home was addressed as Temple. Temple is half way between Thames Ditton and Blackheath. Her brothers included men holding senior Military and Naval Ranks.

Penelope lived in the Parramatta House of the MacArthur, not Camden, when the children grew up (1828 Census). In 1820, a Mrs Lucas died at that address (Sydney Gazette).

Elizabeth MacArthur recorded that Penelope was a Catholic (she said she was a Protestant in the 1828 Census). Mrs. Trist said her ancestors were Catholics. This my explain why the Parish Registers for Thames Ditton are awkward as far as Nathaniel is concerned. Catholics still had to record their Baptisms, Burials and Marriages with the Church of England, but they did not always do so.

Catholic and Protestant marriages worked in patterns in New South Wales. Irish girls and Catholic girls would marry Protestants (they were opportunists). However, a Protestant girl very rarely married a Catholic male (just scan the 1828.Census for examples).

There have been claim that the Thames Ditton Registers for the period have been lost. That is definitely not so..

One final mystery left behind was the burial of Nathaniel in the Mulgoa Road Cemetery. Two reasons were speculated a to why.

(1) He committed suicide and could not be interred in sacred ground. There was,-and still is, some doubt that he did commit suicide. Olivia claimed (as defended by Greenway) that he was murdered. It may also have been an accident. In any case, the rule that a suicide cannot be buried in a sacred cemetery is Catholic, not Protestant, and a Protestant cemetery was available.

(2) St. Lukes Cemetery was not available. St. Lukes Cemetery opened in 1811, seven years before his death.

One factor which might shed some light on the debate is that the other recorded interments in Mulgoa Road Cemetery were .... Catholic. The existence of separate Catholic cemeteries at the time is now provable. St. Rose of Lima's Cemetery at St. Albans commenced at the same time as Mulgoa Road. All interments were definitely Catholic.

In 1805, when John MacArthur returned to Australia on the Argo, he also brought out a Superintendent named William Wall. William Wall was the buyer of Nathaniel's house in Charlotte Place (now 1 York Street).

In 1838 a party of immigrants arrived on the ship, Honduras. Mostly these people were from the Austin family, (Margaret Whitlam is one of their descendants). The Honduras was owned by John MacArthur through his Australian Agricultural Company. They settled on the same estate where Mrs. Trist’s Lucas family moved to live at the same time.

The grandfather of Mr. John Austin was a man named John Thornton. The same Mr. Thornton was Mr. Robert Tooth's grandfather. The town of Thornton near Raymond Terrace commemorates him.

"Mrs." Austin (the couple never married and broke up later even though they had eight children), was John Austin's cousin, Elizabeth Davis. The question is also raised as to whether the Miss Davis who prosecuted Nathaniel was related too.