Not quite the same but it annoys me when widows are described as"relict "ie" Relict of the late Joe Bloggs" as if they were of no value on their own.
Sorry if anyone named Joe Bloggs uses RootsChat.
You have raised some interesting questions, I don`t know the answers but looking forward to reading opinions on these matters .Viktoria.
I should also mention that the informant of the death on the 1860s certificate was the son in law of the Registrar who signed the Entry of Death.
Not quite the same but it annoys me when widows are described as"relict "ie" Relict of the late Joe Bloggs" as if they were of no value on their own.
On another "female" matter (sorry to go off course) I have been doing some FreeReg marriage transcripts and these are from the WW1 years and no matter if the woman who married is a spinster or a widow not one of them has an occupation given out of the 500 or so I've done so far. Liverpool St Peter's.
Why would that be?
On another "female" matter (sorry to go off course) I have been doing some FreeReg marriage transcripts and these are from the WW1 years and no matter if the woman who married is a spinster or a widow not one of them has an occupation given out of the 500 or so I've done so far. Liverpool St Peter's.
Why would that be?
Rather than get annoyed from a feminist perspective I get frustrated that I get less of a picture of my female ancestors. I feel like part of the picture is missing
On another "female" matter (sorry to go off course) I have been doing some FreeReg marriage transcripts and these are from the WW1 years and no matter if the woman who married is a spinster or a widow not one of them has an occupation given out of the 500 or so I've done so far. Liverpool St Peter's.
Why would that be?
Possibly because they did not give an occupation to the registrar.
In most of the Marriage Certificates I have no occupation is given for the bride but I have one from 1936 where the occupation is Telephone Equipment Maker.
It really depends on whether the question was asked or not.
Cheers
Guy
So all those women who worked in munitions, factories, shops, bus and tram conductors, railways, farms etc. which were all essential jobs for the war effort were never asked about their occupation at the time of marriage, perhaps it was down to the local church as to which questions were asked?
One wonders what was entered on the marriage certificate when Princess Elizabeth married Philip?
On another "female" matter (sorry to go off course) I have been doing some FreeReg marriage transcripts and these are from the WW1 years and no matter if the woman who married is a spinster or a widow not one of them has an occupation given out of the 500 or so I've done so far. Liverpool St Peter's.
Why would that be?
Possibly because they did not give an occupation to the registrar.
In most of the Marriage Certificates I have no occupation is given for the bride but I have one from 1936 where the occupation is Telephone Equipment Maker.
It really depends on whether the question was asked or not.
Cheers
Guy
So all those women who worked in munitions, factories, shops, bus and tram conductors, railways, farms etc. which were all essential jobs for the war effort were never asked about their occupation at the time of marriage, perhaps it was down to the local church as to which questions were asked?
Not quite the same but it annoys me when widows are described as"relict "ie" Relict of the late Joe Bloggs" as if they were of no value on their own.
On another "female" matter (sorry to go off course) I have been doing some FreeReg marriage transcripts and these are from the WW1 years and no matter if the woman who married is a spinster or a widow not one of them has an occupation given out of the 500 or so I've done so far. Liverpool St Peter's.
Why would that be?
I think it depends on the followingPerhaps because they decided they made a mistake when they chucked it out in 1812.
1/ Why in 1837 did the Government decide that they needed to know the occupation of bride & groom
2/ How was that information used
3/ Was the bride's occupation needed for that purpose
As evident from birth registration, if the Government needed the information, they tightened up the system and introduced higher fines for non-compliance
The fact they didn't do the same for a bride's occupation suggests they didn't need the information
So why record it?
I think it depends on the following
1/ Why in 1837 did the Government decide that they needed to know the occupation of bride & groom
2/ How was that information used
3/ Was the bride's occupation needed for that purpose
As stated, my problem is that someone has asserted that such information was never recorded (at least not in the 1860s) and was using that argument to rule the information about the father on the death certificate as invalid because the informant should not have provided it. They think it is a cover-up to conceal her real father as the information contradicts the father's name and occupation on the baptism record that they have found and decided is hers.
Hi All
Thank you for your replies but they have not really covered the question I was asking. This was not a women's rights question, or a women's occupation question or about widows but rather one of the procedure used in recording spinsters' deaths.
It has been asserted to me by a few people that the informant did not have to provide the name and occupation of the deceased spinster's father. They found it unusual and have ascribed it to ulterior motives of trying to cover up who her real father was.
I don't want to go into the actual details of the case as it occurs in a published biography. Some people have decided she was the daughter of X because they have found a baptism that seems to fit but the father named in the baptism does not have the same name or occupation as the father stated on the death certificate.
To Anthony and Scouseboy; my remark about the relationship between the informant and the Registrar was a separate fact I discovered in the course of my research. Nowhere on the certificate are the words son in law. It's just another little twist in this vexing case. Would the informant lie to his father in law? Would they collude to give false information?
Let me clarify my question. I think that the recording of a spinster's father and his occupation was a standard procedure in the recording of an Entry of Death of an unmarried woman asked of the informant who may or may not have known. But I don't know if I am correct in this thinking. Was this a question asked from the start of Civil Registration or was it made standard at a later date?
Thank you.
Venelow
Canada
Well, I'd say it is exactly a matter of collecting information.
In 1837 the Government decided they needed a central repository of all the marriages in England & Wales. Why?
You sound like a conspiracy theorist.
I think what I can take from this discussion is that sometimes the death certificates of unmarried woman did record who their father was and his rank or occupation and this would not be an unusual or questionable thing to happen. However it would be subject to how the Registrar proceeded in carrying out his duties and how much the informant knew or was willing to impart.
I had hoped there might have been a few more examples that I could cite to strengthen my case that there was nothing unusual about the certificate in question though, as I stated in my first post, spinster's certificates are not what most people spend their money on. I obtained this particular certificate because of the questions raised by other researchers and the fact that this spinster did have children and her parentage has not been satisfactorily established.
The certificate from the 1950s was in bundle of family papers that I was given.
If anyone has seen examples of such death certificates for an unmarried woman I would be grateful if they contacted me by PM.
Many thanks.
Venelow
Canada
| Number of certificates: | 12 |
| Father's name recorded: | 8 |
| Father's occupation recorded: | 7 |
| Father recorded as deceased: | 5 |
| Informant recorded as relative: | 5 |
| Informant is known relative: | 6 |
| Deceased's occupation recorded: | 6 (2: no occ; 1: independent) |
| 18-19 | 2 | |
| 20-29 | 0 | |
| 30-39 | 0 | |
| 40-49 | 2 | |
| 50-59 | 1 | |
| 60-69 | 1 | |
| 70-79 | 1 | |
| 80+ | 5 | |
| Total | 12 |
In summary I have a death cert for an unmarried aunt who died after retirement age. The registrar put her father's details on the cert. They were not known by the informant. Where did the info come from? Did the registrar have to search the records to find her birth cert?
It has been suggested to me that the informant in the 1860s certificate had no obligation to give the name of the deceased's father and they think the name given is fictitious. Even that the real name of her father has been deliberately concealed. Of course they have another name in mind.
In summary I have a death cert for an unmarried aunt who died after retirement age. The registrar put her father's details on the cert. They were not known by the informant. Where did the info come from? Did the registrar have to search the records to find her birth cert?
Registrars don't do any research to get the information for the certificate. All the information comes from the informant.
Why do you think the father's details were not known by the informant? They must have been or they would not be on the certificate.
Added, after further thought:-
If the informant did not know the deceased, perhaps they found the information in the deceased's effects.
I think what I can take from this discussion is that sometimes the death certificates of unmarried woman did record who their father was and his rank or occupation and this would not be an unusual or questionable thing to happen. However it would be subject to how the Registrar proceeded in carrying out his duties and how much the informant knew or was willing to impart.
I had hoped there might have been a few more examples that I could cite to strengthen my case that there was nothing unusual about the certificate in question though, as I stated in my first post, spinster's certificates are not what most people spend their money on. I obtained this particular certificate because of the questions raised by other researchers and the fact that this spinster did have children and her parentage has not been satisfactorily established.
The certificate from the 1950s was in bundle of family papers that I was given.
If anyone has seen examples of such death certificates for an unmarried woman I would be grateful if they contacted me by PM.
Many thanks.
Venelow
Canada
I have checked the many death certificates of females I have but still cannot answer your question. They certs I have are either for a wife or widow or for a minor.
In the case of the wife or widow the husband's name and often his occupation is shown and for minors the father's name and occupation is shown.
It is not too much of a leap to think the father's name & occupation would be shown on death certificates of females until they married but I cannot confirm that.
Cheers
Guy
Thanks for your update Guy. Apologies for not acknowledging sooner. I've had a busy week.No need to apologise we all have a life away from the forums.
Venelow
Canada