Sorry, probably wrong section, but I am fascinated as to why the vast majority of people who populated Australia, who were British, didn't stay in the Perth area? It was a huge step to carry on to the eastern coast, which has many more cities than the western side?
It is always quoted that Perth is the most isolated city in the world, but isolated from where?
Those that populated Sydney did not come from the States etc, and would have had to stop off in Perth, I would have thought.
It's not hard to google it, but Botany Bay, Sydney was where the first colonisations were. It looks like it was actually a huge step to carry on to the Western coast as they mainly stayed in the east.
UK and European migrants would have travelled through the Suez Canal and the Indian Ocean before making landfall in Fremantle, Western Australia.
Fremantle is the Port for Perth, where ships re-fuelled before carrying on to South Australia (Adelaide)or the East Coast Ports (Sydney).
The natural route for a sailing ship is to follow the East Indies (which were well known) then head South.
The North West coast is also very inhospitable looking.
So they followed the tropical coast of (what became) Queensland until the reef ended and the terrain became more temperate.
They just happened to find the largest (and most spectacular) natural harbour in the world in an area that was only slightly inhospitable - hence they called it New 'South Wales'.
The early pioneers only just clung on to life there; trying to make a go of Western Australia would not have been viable.
I've travelled around most of Australia over the years - except Western Australia.
I'm sure Perth is a lovely little place, but the one time we did consider it, the prospect of driving for three days through the 'Great Australian Stuff-All' just to get there was not very appealing. :-)
Heading up through the centre was much more interesting.