Finding First Wife of Ancestor John Daley

[loobylooayr]

Hi Forfarian.

There was a query recently regarding decphiring a place of birth on a Census and it was West Thorn (I remember because I had never heard of it) - just can't remember what the name was
Racking my brains .....was it Bernard Daley?
Looby

[Little Nell]

There was a query recently regarding decphiring a place of birth on a Census and it was West Thorn

It was this one:

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=710701.0

Nell

[Forfarian]

There was a query recently regarding decphiring a place of birth on a Census and it was West Thorn (I remember because I had never heard of it) - just can't remember what the name was
Racking my brains .....was it Bernard Daley?

Yes. Got it. Same family. Here it is, for the avoidance of further duplication of effort
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=710701.0

[jmara]

Yes-when I was trying to locate info. on John and you all helped me find a great deal, including the 1851 census. My query here was specifically about trying to determine info. about who the first wife was, so I'm sorry if I've troubled anyone and made them take up time looking for info. on John and Susan Dailly, which I already have. And yes, Forfarian- it WAS Bernard Daley but written likely phonetically as Barnard. That's amazing you remembered that--it was awhile ago.



quote author=Forfarian link=topic=713594.msg5573169#msg5573169 date=1424637470]

there is this possible 1851 census entry on Ancestry.

Another specimen of rubbish transcription from Ancestry.

FreeCEN has Margaret and David born Midlothian, Edinburgh; John born Midlothian, Portubella, which they have interpreted as Portobello; James born Stirlingshire, Slamannan and Thomas born possibly West Thorn, Lanarkshire with a note that the transcribers were unsure of the parish of birth. (West Thorn rings a bell - have we had this same query before?)
[/quote]

[Forfarian]

I'm sorry if I've troubled anyone

It's not that anyone was especially 'troubled' but it is generally a good idea, if you start a new thread on a related topic, just to include a link to the previous thread so that everyone knows what has already been discussed.

[jmara]

LittleNell-Thanks Again for finding this.

I have the statutory death record attached below  but was hoping for a little guidance on what information I can glean from this and if I am reading the form correctly. It seems to say she died of peridonitis with "15 days" next to it. Does this mean she had it for 15 days before passing? For the time period-1862-was peridonitis  seen concurrent with another condition (e.g. childbirth?)
Any insights would be appreciated.

[Joyful]

Hi jmara

Ann's cause of death was 'peritonitis' and basically is an infection in the abdomen specifically the

 peritoneum. It is quite common in cases where for example someone's appendix bursts. It can be

fatal if not treated promptly with antibiotics. 15 days is quite easily the length of time it took her to

die

Whether it was seen with childbirth I don't know...septicaemia was more common with

childbirth I think

HTH

Joy

[jmara]

So sad. I found this is an article on British maternal Mortality in the 19th century:
PUERPERAL PYREXIA
Deaths from puerperal pyrexiai are rarely seen these days, but it was a major killer in previous centuries. It usually followed an ascending infection of the decidua and particularly to the placental bed. It started 3-10 days after birth and ended in one of three outcomes:
1-a pelvic abscess, a localised infection of the pelvis walled off by natural resistance;
2-a septic thrombophlebitis leading to septicaemia when bacteria could spread to the pelvic veins. This was usually fatal;
3-peritonitis, which was usually a most painful death, when bacteria had travelled up the fallopian tube.

On that very sad note, please consider this post addressed and closed.

Hi jmara