Occupation of unmarried women on English Death Certificates

[ScouseBoy]

My auntie worked for the C.I.A  during WW2

[Guy Etchells]

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?

I don't know what all those brides were asked but I can say for certain that when I married in 1981 I was asked my occupation by the registrar but Kay, my wife was not asked her occupation even though she did have one and neither of us volunteered the information.

Cheers
Guy

[ScouseBoy]

One wonders what was entered on the marriage certificate when Princess Elizabeth married Philip?

[Guy Etchells]

One wonders what was entered on the marriage certificate when Princess Elizabeth married Philip?

Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland you can view it on Google search for
Marriage certificate of Princess Elizabeth

Cheers
Guy

[ScouseBoy]

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?

I am reminded of the Rudyard Kipling poem  "Tommy Atkins"

He could and should have written one called "Rosy the Riveter"   for WW2.

Let us not forget all those uniformed women who served in North Africa during WW2.

[clairec666]

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.

See the probate calendar - women are referred to as "widow" or "wife of xxx", then in 1966 (I think) this is dropped and they are just referred to by name. Good news for feminists, bad news for genealogists who've lost a vital piece of information!

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?

Two of my great-great-grandmothers are referred to as "domestic servant" on their marriage certificate. Another has no occupation, even though I've found her on the census shortly before the wedding, working as a domestic servant. I guess it depends what questions the couple asked, and what answers they gave!

[StevieSteve]

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 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?

[ScouseBoy]

Red Tape gone mad.

[Guy Etchells]

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 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?

Perhaps because they decided they made a mistake when they chucked it out in 1812.

Take a look at what was proposed, but rejected, for the Rose's Act of 1812
http://anguline.co.uk/schedule.pdf

Cheers
Guy