spouse wording death cert 1841

[kylejustin]

i have a death in 1841, deighton near northallerton yorks. the occupation is "wife of". the lady in question was on her own in the 1841 census. no sign of the husband since last child born in 1804. i had thought he predeceased her but no signs of a burial 1804-1841.

i know sometimes the earlier certs don't record things properly, so do you think the husband is alive and they separated? or that the wording is incorrect and she is a widow? i do have a death from 1838 in yorks, at guisborough where the lady was recorded as "a game keeper's widow".

[Anne in Carlisle]

It would usually say widow if her husband was already dead. However, as you just wrote on another thread, there can be mistakes made. Maybe the person reporting the death was not clear, or possibly the registrar worded his question ambiguously.
Anne

[Lin Fisher]

I agree Anne, if the registrar asked her husbands name. They perhaps didn't think to say he had died. Same as some marriages where the father's name appears without deceased at the side,

[Sylvia C]

I've seen many death certificates for my history and when doing it for others, where the status of the wife OR husband is wrong, both in saying "wife of" or "widow of".

I stick firmly to the belief that there only a few statements that you can believe on any death certificate.

They are ..........
Place and Date of Death, time (if given)
Name and address of person reporting
Name and address of doctor, if given

Everything else could be wrong because it is only what is known by the person reporting.

Also, how information was asked can be important.

So I would say, nothing lost if you look for her husband after 1841!

Marriage certificates can be just as wrong!!

I also apply this same belief to all certificates right through into at least the early 20th century.

[GallowayLass]

Sylvia C Quite agree there
OH had a Gt. Grandfather who had two sons by his first wife. He registered the first but she registered the second claiming to be a widow, a status she maintained till death (the marriage certificates for both sons say father is deceased). Oh, no she wasn’t !!
Her husband had upped and left for Glasgow and got a girl pregnant. They married, him using a variation of his real surname and gave the correct forename and occupation for his father but for his mother he gave one of the two surnames she was known by as she had been born the wrong side of the blankets. A girl was born shortly thereafter and registered with the same variant of her father’s surname that he had used on his bigamous marriage. Come the following census, the family had shipped out of Glasgow to Harthill (only 10 miles away from where he left his wife and two sons. By this time they had more children and he has gone and changed his surname again (and the daughter’s) to that of the new “wife” and the children were registered with surname which has been the family surname ever since.
It all tied up on his death which is registered under his real and assumed surnames because fortunately the informant was aware of the correct info. He was the husband of the only living niece on the deceased’s side of the family. There were no living nephews on his side. After the 2nd “wife” had died, the deceased had gone to live with his niece (born with marriage) and her husband before being admitted to a nearby asylum/care home which later was owned by the local authority.
There had been a nephew born illegitimately to another of his sisters. She died a few days later and guess who registered the birth? This time though he used his real surname! He must have taken the baby down to Ayr to his mother to be brought up by its grandparents but sadly the baby also died not long after, his granny being the informant.
Gt. Father led me a right merry dance!

[Sylvia C]

Sylvia C Quite agree there
OH had a Gt. Grandfather who had two sons by his first wife. He registered the first but she registered the second claiming to be a widow, a status she maintained till death (the marriage certificates for both sons say father is deceased). Oh, no she wasn’t !!
Her husband had upped and left for Glasgow and got a girl pregnant. They married, him using a variation of his real surname and gave the correct forename and occupation for his father but for his mother he gave one of the two surnames she was known by as she had been born the wrong side of the blankets. A girl was born shortly thereafter and registered with the same variant of her father’s surname that he had used on his bigamous marriage. Come the following census, the family had shipped out of Glasgow to Harthill (only 10 miles away from where he left his wife and two sons. By this time they had more children and he has gone and changed his surname again (and the daughter’s) to that of the new “wife” and the children were registered with surname which has been the family surname ever since.
It all tied up on his death which is registered under his real and assumed surnames because fortunately the informant was aware of the correct info. He was the husband of the only living niece on the deceased’s side of the family. There were no living nephews on his side. After the 2nd “wife” had died, the deceased had gone to live with his niece (born with marriage) and her husband before being admitted to a nearby asylum/care home which later was owned by the local authority.
There had been a nephew born illegitimately to another of his sisters. She died a few days later and guess who registered the birth? This time though he used his real surname! He must have taken the baby down to Ayr to his mother to be brought up by its grandparents but sadly the baby also died not long after, his granny being the informant.
Gt. Father led me a right merry dance!

That's quite the story!!!

Mine mostly seem to have lied about their ages and whether they were widowed or not. But non-family reporters of a death did get things wildly wrong!