Death Certificate Error?

mindhorn

Following a recent post in the handwriting thread, I'm looking for help in figuring out some conflicting information I've come across. I'm trying to confirm if Mary Anne Whelan's death certificate somehow contains a mistake in stating that she was a widow at the time of her death. Below is a summary and I've included this graph to hopefully give a clearer picture.

I believe Laurence Whelan was born around 1839 and died in 1913 (link to possible death certificate). States that he was a widower at the time of his death.

Laurence Whelan's 1911 census record - http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Dublin/Trinity_Ward/Asylum_Yard/87673/

I have a death certificate for Mary Anne Whelan. I think this is Mary Anne Burke (maiden name). However, on Mary Anne's death certificate it states that she was a widow at the time of her death in 1898. It lists her husband's occupation as being a porter, which matches various records I've come across for Laurence.

It also says her daughter Julia Nevin was the informant. I wasn't able to find her birth certificate. The first record I have of her is as the informant of her sister Harriett Whelan's death (link). She married a William Phelan in 1885 (link). William died soon after (link) and she remarried in 1892 to Patrick Nevin (link).

I think I'm missing something here as these records don't make sense to me. Mary Anne Burke's husband lived until 1913 yet on her death certificate in 1898 it states that she was a widow. My guess is that this is a different Mary Anne altogether but the fact that Julia Nevin was the informant is throwing me off. I'd be grateful if someone has time to cross-check some of this information.

Hermy

mindhorn wrote: »

I'm trying to confirm if Mary Anne Whelan's death certificate somehow contains a mistake in stating that she was a widow at the time of her death.

The simple answer to your question is yes.

The contents of all records - be they modern or historic - are at the whim of those who create them.

While most records are filled out correctly most of the time there are enough examples of glaring errors in civil and parish registers to make me comfortable accepting them providing everything else fits.

So while it may make it harder to prove a certain case I wouldn't rule out a given record just because it says someone was married when they were not.

mindhorn

Thanks, Hermy. I guess there's just a concern that I go down the wrong path. Spurious had mentioned in the handwriting thread that it would be unusual that her daughter (informant) would provide incorrect information like this. I've come across errors in other records before but not something like this. The fact that it's mentioned twice (both widow and porter's widow) is really throwing me off!

I don't know if you (or anybody else) had a moment to sense check some of the documents?

Hermy

I've had a look and it seems okay to me.

Not only does the informant's name fit for Mary Anne's death in 1898 but the address also tallies - 60 Great Strand Street is where Julia and her tailor husband Patrick Nevin were living in 1901.

mindhorn

Sorry, only getting back to this now. Thanks again, Hermy. I think I'm happy enough now that there was some miscommunication at the time and whoever took note just made the, eh, simple mistake of recording someone as dead when in fact they were alive and kicking.