RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: karen58 on Thursday 07 October 21 06:06 BST (UK)
-
Hi, would appreciate your thoughts on this death and burial.
The death certificate reads: 27 Jan 1864, Mary Pitchforth, Cowcliffe Fixby, Age 10 Weeks, Daughter of Joseph Pitchforth Wool Sorter, Informant: Joseph Pitchforth, Cowcliffe Fixby present at death.
The Woodhouse Christ Church, (Huddersfield) burial register reads: 31 Jan 1864, Mary, Daughter of Sarah Ann Pitchforth of Cowcliffe, Age 10 Weeks.
Now the conundrum is, I am absolutely certain Sarah Ann Pitchforth is the daughter of Joseph Pitchforth, wool sorter of Cowcliffe Fixby.
The Fixby side of Cowcliffe was very small, only about 20 houses, and I know the family's who lived there well and do not know of another Sarah Ann Pitchforth in the Cowcliffe are.
Have searched the registers and census for another Sarah Ann Pitchforth in the Cowcliffe area without results.
Perhaps because Joseph was the informant, it was assumed that he was the father.
Is this possible?
Can't come up with another explanation.
Cheers Karen
-
Have you found Mary's birth certificate?? I noticed this one on the GRO in the area that covers Fixby and no mother's maiden name was listed
PITCHFORTH, MARY No Mothers Maiden Name
GRO Ref: 1863 Dec Quarter in HALIFAX Volume 09A Page 421
As you say it is possible that it was assumed that Joseph was the father rather than grandfather when he registerd the death
Kat
-
On freebmd
A Joseph Pitchforth married an Elizabeth Haigh (only woman in list): - June Qtr 1864 Huddersfield 9a 427
A Joseph Pitchforth married a Priscilla Wood or a Hannah Taylor (only 2 in list) Sept Qtr 1866 Halifax 9a 588 (Top side of Fixby is located near Halifax area of Elland and Brighouse)
or Joseph at the death on death certifcate did not marry
From settings marriages whole England & Wales 1850 to 1970
It suggest to me Sarah Ann was a sister or niece of Joseph Pitchforth thus Sarah could be the mother of Mary the child (Mary born Illegitimate and Joseph being the male at the death an assumption was made he was the father.)
-
Hi Kat,
Thank you. That certainly is worth a shot. I'll order it tonight
Karen
PITCHFORTH, MARY No Mothers Maiden Name
GRO Ref: 1863 Dec Quarter in HALIFAX Volume 09A Page 421
-
Hi dobfarm
Yes, Joseph Pitchforth married Elizabeth Haigh 28 May 1864. Elizabeth was almost 50 at the time, but still possible that she was the mother.
Cheers
On freebmd
A Joseph Pitchforth married an Elizabeth Haigh (only woman in list): - June Qtr 1864 Huddersfield 9a 427
-
Hi Kat,
Thank you. That certainly is worth a shot. I'll order it tonight
Karen
PITCHFORTH, MARY No Mothers Maiden Name
GRO Ref: 1863 Dec Quarter in HALIFAX Volume 09A Page 421
You do know that you can get it emailed to you as a PDF for just £7,rather than the £11 for a full cert?
-
Hi Kat
Yes I buy the PDFs. Wish GRO would provide the same option for marriage certificates.
Should have the the Mary Pitchforth birth certificate by the 12th. Will let you know if it is the correct.
Thank you again
Cheers Karen
-
Perhaps because Joseph was the informant, it was assumed that he was the father.
Establishing that the informant is qualified to register the death is one of the key things a registrar is required to do - it would be much more likely that he claimed to be the father (whether he was or not is a different question), rather than an erroneous assumption was made.
-
Hi AntonyMMM
Thank you for clarifying this.
Cheers
Karen
-
All the information on any certificate is dependent on the information provided at the time. Fictitious fathers on birth and marriage certificates, false names, incorrect marital status to conceal bigamy etc. We always have to be prepared for inconsistencies and double check using alternative sources. ::)
-
Hi, would appreciate your thoughts on this death and burial.
The death certificate reads: 27 Jan 1864, Mary Pitchforth, Cowcliffe Fixby, Age 10 Weeks, Daughter of Joseph Pitchforth Wool Sorter, Informant:[/b] Joseph Pitchforth, Cowcliffe Fixby present at death.
The Woodhouse Christ Church, (Huddersfield) burial register reads: 31 Jan 1864, Mary, Daughter of Sarah Ann Pitchforth of Cowcliffe, Age 10 Weeks.
Now the conundrum is, I am absolutely certain Sarah Ann Pitchforth is the daughter of Joseph Pitchforth, wool sorter of Cowcliffe Fixby.
The Fixby side of Cowcliffe was very small, only about 20 houses, and I know the family's who lived there well and do not know of another Sarah Ann Pitchforth in the Cowcliffe are.
Have searched the registers and census for another Sarah Ann Pitchforth in the Cowcliffe area without results.
Perhaps because Joseph was the informant, it was assumed that he was the father.
Is this possible?
Can't come up with another explanation.
Cheers Karen
As it reads -You say Sarah Ann is daugher of Joseph
Sarah Ann is mother of Mary
Death cert says Joseph is father of Mary or his daugher (Same thing)
Hence some other connection
-
Hi Dobfarm
If there is another connection, I can't find it.
It could be as AntonyMMM has said, that Joseph claimed to be the father. Perhaps he was protecting his daughter who was a single mother.
I know that Sarah Ann is Joseph's daughter as her birth certificate records her father as 'Joseph Pitchforth of Cowcliffe Huddersfield, Wool Sorter'.
Also, it is established from Sarah Ann's death certificate that she was single when she died.
So that supports the premise that she was a single mother being consistent with Mary's burial register.
For now I will wait for the Mary Pitchforth birth certificate.
There is also the possibility that the Pitchforths had a monument at Christ Church Woodhouse that might clarify things.
Cheers
Karen
Hence some other connection
-
Well if Joseph had been doing as records suggest ??? - he would surely be clever enough not to put it on record, thus it suggests a record is wrong and usually a parent register a birth. Death certificate informant's are the weak link usually. Yet! if Joseph's name appears as father of Sarah Ann birth certificate and as father on Mary's birth certificate. Then if every thing is legal, then there must be more than one Joseph. Maybe granddad Joseph of Mary also same Joseph father of Sarah Ann and his son Joseph father Mary. = 2 Joseph's
-
.....
The death certificate reads: 27 Jan 1864, Mary Pitchforth, Cowcliffe Fixby, Age 10 Weeks, Daughter of Joseph Pitchforth Wool Sorter, Informant: Joseph Pitchforth, Cowcliffe Fixby present at death.
......
It is entirely possible that Joseph was asked the question 'Was the wee baby, Mary, your daughter' and that he lied and replied YES. But, it is also possible that the Deputy Registrar actually asked the question in a less direct manner. Afterall, Joseph, the informant, has given honest answers to all the remaining questions posed in that registration, including his occupation. What if Joseph believed he was answering a question about his relationship with his daughter, Sarah Ann, the mother of the baby, Mary.. Afterall, in 1864 these questions were likely part of a verbal report rather than filling out a pro forma printed form and letting that be shared with family to check if the information is accurate ... assuming of course that everyone was literate :-X :-X :-X ....
JM
-
Hi majm,
Good point.
There is also the possibility that the registrar was little on the deaf side and didn't hear what Joseph was saying correctly.
I have a death certificate that reports a fellow as a clog maker where all other records report him as a cloth maker or clothier.
I figure this was either that informant's West Riding accent was confounding things or the registrar was deaf.
Mary died of a convulsion and Joseph was with her when she died. It would have been a very distressing experience.
I would have difficulty keeping things together in such an instance.
Cheers
Karen
-
One has to remember (not always) these working people had little education, I say that instead of saying illiterate! as not only could they not read or write but would have little knowledge of word meanings or definition of and most likely was on up on slang or street talk knowledge of English grammar (Unless the registrar was conversant with their level of education or words they used). Thus the registrars questions in some part were - like your occupation, rephrased your job or work you do and other questions misunderstood
I'm not on websites that have census info now a days and nothing is coming up on familysearch 1861c and 1871 c
-
It is entirely possible that Joseph was asked the question 'Was the wee baby, Mary, your daughter' and that he lied and replied YES. But, it is also possible that the Deputy Registrar actually asked the question in a less direct manner. Afterall, Joseph, the informant, has given honest answers to all the remaining questions posed in that registration, including his occupation. What if Joseph believed he was answering a question about his relationship with his daughter, Sarah Ann, the mother of the baby, Mary.. Afterall, in 1864 these questions were likely part of a verbal report rather than filling out a pro forma printed form and letting that be shared with family to check if the information is accurate ... assuming of course that everyone was literate
Even if it was phrased that way, he could have misheard it as
'Was the wee baby, Mary, your daughter's?'
There is a lot of scope for misunderstandings, and if no other explanation is found I think I would put it down to that.
-
Hi - I had a similar conumdrum and assumed the totally wrong scenario !
Great (2) grandfather Griffith was married to Elizabeth and had amongst other children - two daughters, Elizabeth and Mary. His wife, Elizabeth, died in 1873.
During those great old days when the Registrar would let you browse through the indexes and registers to your heart's content I found whilst looking for another death two infant deaths in 1880... One for a Ellen Roberts aged 18 months, daughter of Griffith Roberts and reported by Elizabeth Roberts, present at death; then another for a Margaret Roberts aged two years, daughter of Griffith Roberts and reported by Mary Roberts, present at death. No relationship for the informants was detailed; the welsh wording for their ages was used dyflwydd (two years) and deunaw mis (18months). This must have been around 1988/89 ..no 1891 census.
I counted on my fingers and said No Way these babies aren't his daughters a) his wife's dead and b) there's not enough months... I know they are the older daughters (the informants' children) and that was that.
Get to the 1891 census and he had a new wife so I thought better do a bit more research here and looked for the birth certificates of the babies - they were twins born of the second wife but sadly they died of TB within a month of each other; Griffith also lost a son aged 12 from his first wife in the same month of TB.
I've learnt not to assume anything - two different informants used a different colloquialism to describe the babies age so I assumed and didn't follow up
Nesta
-
Hi Kay99
The death certificate was for a different Mary.
Thank you for your help regardless. It least I know that all possibilities have been thoroughly searched and I can put this away.
Cheers Karen
Have you found Mary's birth certificate?? I noticed this one on the GRO in the area that covers Fixby and no mother's maiden name was listed
PITCHFORTH, MARY No Mothers Maiden Name
GRO Ref: 1863 Dec Quarter in HALIFAX Volume 09A Page 421
-
Hi Sloe Gin
This sounds like the most likely explanation.
Thank you
Even if it was phrased that way, he could have misheard it as
'Was the wee baby, Mary, your daughter's?'
There is a lot of scope for misunderstandings, and if no other explanation is found I think I would put it down to that.