Time between death and burial in 1780

[Marmalady]

In 1849, an ancestor, obviously a genealogy enthusiast, recorded the inscription from a family gravestone from some 70 years earlier.

On it is recorded the death date of Elizabeth Beverley as 12 March 1780. But the burial register shows the burial to have been 29th March. The church is St Johns, Leeds.
Nowadays, two-and-half weeks between death and burial is pretty much normal -- but back then 2 or 3 days was the usual interval

Any ideas why such a long interval?
Even if the transcription was wrong and she died 22 March -- that still leaves a week between death & burial

[BumbleB]

BT's say that Elizabeth, wife of William Beverley, Call Lane was buried 13 March 1780. 

Added:  As does the parish register of burials.

[Marmalady]

Thanks -- 13th is certainly more the date I would expect

I have now found the entry which clearly shows 13th.

But this is the one I found last night, taken from Leeds, St John Evangelist for 1780 -- am I totally mis-reading it?

[toby webb]

I wonder what the weather was like in 1780. Still winter-time and perhaps the ground was hard as iron. In 1947 there must have been similar circumstances as the winter went on for ages with deep snow. I remmber that the whole of Lent term at school was passed with no out-door sports! T

[BumbleB]

Confusion reigns, I think.

You found a burial at St John the Evangelist, Leeds (WYAS reference P64) - 29 March 1780 for Elizabeth wife of William Beverley of Cow Lane, aged 62 - cause of death = dropsy.

I found a burial at St John, but within the records for St Peter (parish church of Leeds - WYAS reference P68) - so is this St John a chapelry of St Peter?  Entry for Elisabeth wife of William Beverley of Call Lane, buried 13 March 1780 - no age given.

So, do we actually have two ladies named Elizabeth, married to William Beverley?   

[arthurk]

In 1780 St John's was still a chapelry attached to the Parish Church (St Peter). It had its own registers, but burials etc were also entered in the St Peter's registers. If you look at the page from the St Peter's register for Elisabeth Beverley's burial, you'll see that it's headed up "Burials at St John's 1780".

I think the current name of her residence is Call Lane. I haven't come across it as Cow Lane before, but it might be poor copying by someone who didn't know the area well. It appears as Call Lane near the bottom of the same page in the St John's register.

As for the difference in dates, I think what's happened with the St John's register is that the edge of the page has got folded or crumbled away, and the date (29th) is from the page below. This can be verified by looking at the previous image. Note that Elisabeth's name and the one above are incomplete, and that if her burial had been on 29 Mar it would have been entered out of order - there are some a little lower down for the 19th.

So just one person and one burial - and if the MI record is correct, just a day after she died.

[goldie61]

Good detective work arthurk!

[Marmalady]

Thank you !

The name of the lane varies in the registers over the period of time the Beverley families (several generations) live there -- Cow Lane, Caw Lane, Call Lane, Callane

[Andrew Tarr]

I haven't come across it as Cow Lane before, but it might be poor copying by someone who didn't know the area well. It appears as Call Lane near the bottom of the same page in the St John's register.

On the question of 'poor copying', is there a consensus on how this was done?  If by one person, there should be little scope for error, but if (say) a curate was dictating the original while the vicar wrote, that would provide a source of homonymous error?