Genealogy Chat

Hi

My 5xgreat grandmother Phyllis Boniface died on the 27th July 1846 and her deathwas registered on the 29th July 1846. But in the "Cause of Death" column it syas "Unknown, not certified, and no medical attendace" which I find a bit suspect. Her husband George said that he was present at the death. The cert doesnt say that an inquest was held but if there was an inquest it should say on the cert. If the cause was unknown and not certified and had no medical attendance then wouldnt an autopsy or inquest have been held. Or at least a doctor to come an examine the body?

Also, George got remarried on the 31 March 1847 and his new wife was 7 months pregnant. Their first son was born in May 1847 and died in July aged 8 weeks. That means that he was probably concieved in August 1846, and George's wife had only died the month before. Bit soon I think???

This has raised a few antennae.

I think at that time, medical attendance/attestation of death was not mandatory.

EDIT have a look at this site, cause of death column.
http://home.clara.net/dixons/Certificates/deaths.htm#COL7

No such luck , no National Health in those days, women didnt merit such luxuries! If the man was present then they took his word fot it.Suspicious or not!

Also if he had children by Phyllis, he would have needed another wife quickly to look after the children. It happened frequently where one partner died and the other married shortly after.

Hi

Thanks for the replies.

I have just recapped on death certs by reading Barbara Dixons site and it says that a lot of deaths were uncertified meaning that a doctor didnt attend to them as they had to be paid for so there was probably no foul play then.

I suspect that George found his second wife as a shoulder to cry on straight after Phyllis's death and he then got her pregnant and married her 6 months later. I have had a lot of quick remarriages of male ancestors if they were widowed.

Ben

I've often wondered, Ben, if cases like these could be the result of men seeing childrearing as "womens' work" ie, that they would go out and earn the money all day while their wives raised the children and saw that there was a meal on the table when the man came home.

I think - unlike now - a man would more than likely look out for a new wife quite quickly (my 3xgreat grandad married a lady named Charlotte, then Charlotte died leaving him with three children and he married Charlotte's little sister Sarah) because he wouldn't know how to look after children and probably wouldn't see it as his responsibility, either. I think this is sometimes why widowed fathers might send the kids to live with a relative and have them back if and when they married again.

Such marriages were often for convenience. It was the only hope for a lot of older spinsters. They could marry a widower to provide for them and in return the kids got looked after.