Facebook Australia Day 26th January 2015
Amanda Wells writes:
” I LOVE my Nation ….. so does my husband who came here when he was 19. My heritage is 2nd Fleet. Revivalists who settled in Inverell and passed on to 2 generations, Presbyterian churches, where it is reported that the fire of God would fall in the meetings (so the curator of the cemetery showed me the records.[n.b. brackets were not closed in her post but it is assumed they should be closed here]. On my other side we arrived on the convict ship Pitt but were early settlers. Benjamin Singleton married Hannnah Singleton and they settled and named Singleton the town and owned the land. Later they sent Howe to an island and he became Lord Howe. They were strong Presbyterians and brought their faith into their homes and business. I have an awesome heritage. I live in an awesome country…… A Nation built on God Almighty men and women who are pioneers and God fearing.”
Wells also made this nonsensical Australia Day claim: (note that disseminating this nonsense is difficult as story itself is fragmented and illogical – whether this is intentional or not and is just a deliberate attempt to be so lacking in sense as to confuse her followers, is difficult to say.)
Firstly, since Wells names people here who are NOT our ancestors it is of little use to waste time rebutting her story about revivalists. We are NOT descended from Benjamin Singleton. Regardless of that fact, and incidental to her claim, about her “other side” neither did the Benjamin Singleton with whom the town of Singleton is associated “marry Hannah Singleton”. Her claim that the “curator of the cemetery showed [her] records” should be treated therefore with disdain. What curator? What records? Which cemetery? Of course if Wells requested information on Benjamin Singleton at any time from any institution or person she would have been given information on him BUT he is not her ancestor so what relevance does any such information have to her claim!
Since Benjamin Singleton did not “marry Hannah Singleton” this claim cannot have any validity and since Benjamin is NOT our ancestor anyway this whole claim is a total nonsense. What does “passed on to two generations, Presbyterians churches, where it is reported ……..” etc mean or what is it intended to mean? The sentence is garbled, fragmented and utter nonsense. In her eagerness to impress, Wells has muddled family names and facts and distorted her own family history.
The statement “Later they sent Howe to an Island and he became Lord Howe” is so irrational as to be hardly worthy of comment but in the interest of not allowing such ridiculous statements to pass without attention and to assist others to see the intent to deceive, it should be noted by those who accept Wells’ statement without question, that Lord Howe Island was named by Henry Lidgebird Ball of the First Fleet after the British Admiral Richard Howe who in 1783 took up the position of First Lord of the Admiralty. The entire statement is so irrational and erroneous as to surely alert any discerning person that the one making such a statement is to be investigated as to their authenticity. Thus once again the words she claims she hears from God are also to be questioned are they not?
And yet another fraudulent claim on May 19th on her Facebook page Amanda Wells Coaching:
“Just thoughts: where do you think our culture of dishonour has come from? Some say our penal colony roots, I disagree, because in the 50’s and 60’s and long before we were a nation of honour. Our schools created honour, we honoured the flag, the National Anthem and were taught manners. I believe it came long after the colony. I only had one ancestor who came as a criminal, the rest were ministers of the Gospel, land owners ( Hannah Singleton who owned Singleton) so to say the penal past affected me doesn’t quite cut it. Could it have been the removal of mores in the spheres of influence that created a culture of dishonour???”
It is very hard to know to know just where to begin with this thoroughly dishonest and disgraceful claim. Perhaps the best place would be to remember the words of the old proverb, “To forget one’s ancestors is to be a brook without a source, a tree without a root”.
There is nothing more shameful than to deny one’s ancestry. We only exist in any moment because of those who came before us. But to deny one’s ancestry and to make false claims in order to concoct a false profile and idea of oneself to deceive others is more than shameful – it is fraud. Firstly in the interests of the correct terminology, when speaking of those transported to the early colony, they are never referred to by historians as “criminals” but rather as “convicts” so a little brush-up on Australian history by Wells is probably in order. Wells’ claim that she had only had one ancestor who was a “criminal” (sic) is an unmitigated LIE. The majority of our ancestors in this country were convicts and they were proud early settlers of this country. To deny them is disgraceful. For Wells to state that “to say that the penal past affected me doesn’t quite cut it” may need a re-think on her part. As Wells is descended from convicts on almost every branch of her family, transported for theft, political dissidence, highway robbery, prostitution and even manslaughter and since many lied in the commission of their crimes and during their subsequent trials, it would appear that her penal past has very much affected her, as lying appears to come quite easily to her. Again, we are NOT descended from “Hannah Singleton who owned Singleton” as Wells continually claims and NO direct ancestors were Ministers of the Gospel! Given her untruthful claims, it seems she may indeed be well qualified to speak about a “culture of dishonour”.
Wells has spoken one truth in her otherwise irrational rants. She does indeed have an “awesome heritage” – it’s just seems she doesn’t know what it is!!
To reinvent her own history is one thing but to re-invent the family stories of others with lies and embellishments is disgraceful. If a person will create lies about her personal life and experiences how then do people possibly consider they can trust her claims that she is “prophet” and that her claims that she hears from God have any authenticity whatsoever? Of course they do not!