Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
08-02-2019, 20:57   #1891
pinkypinky
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,640
Nevertheless, it is a rule of this thread that we ask for the full page. It's actually written in the thread title. Seeing the full page shows other users the context and what format the writer employed.
pinkypinky is offline  
(3) thanks from:
Advertisement
08-02-2019, 22:25   #1892
Hermy
Registered User
 
Hermy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by SophieLockhart View Post
It's not a 'decipher' question so linking to the full page won't make any difference? (I presume the images are visible).
It's very much a decipher question when you don't provide a link to the source, or where that isn't available, at least details like where, when and who.
Hermy is offline  
(2) thanks from:
08-02-2019, 23:45   #1893
spurious
Category Moderator
 
spurious's Avatar
In other instances where I have seen something circled, it has meant there was a correction of the circled item later, but if that is the case in this instance, it would have a note written in the margin, which we would see if there was a full image.
spurious is offline  
(3) thanks from:
09-02-2019, 12:29   #1894
SophieLockhart
Registered User
 
SophieLockhart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 55
Okay okay Entry no 454

https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy....39/4653863.pdf
SophieLockhart is offline  
09-02-2019, 15:41   #1895
spurious
Category Moderator
 
spurious's Avatar
I would say that is a copy. If you look at it, the entries are in lovely legible writing, while a scrawl is in the bottom part.

It's possible the original had 'father' or something else instead of husband. I don't think the registrar would be interested in making judgments, if the person reporting said they were the husband, so be it. The circle around husband could be to show it had been changed. I don't know if the GRO would be worth asking.

What I found interesting was that the medical attendant was deceased. I haven't seen that before. There was also a bit of a delay in the registration of the death, but that can result from many things.
spurious is offline  
(2) thanks from:
Advertisement
09-02-2019, 18:31   #1896
Deja Boo
Registered User
 
Deja Boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 2,886
Entry 459 also shows husband circled and deceased medical attendant, with a time gap in registering.
(Note, just as a reference - there may be a marriage registration in Tipp for a same name couple of 459 - altho the ages differ greatly between the marriage and death registration).


Entry 474 has 'relative' circled (the deceased and relative have different surnames).

.

Last edited by Deja Boo; 09-02-2019 at 18:52.
Deja Boo is offline  
(2) thanks from:
09-02-2019, 18:40   #1897
spurious
Category Moderator
 
spurious's Avatar
They are also in the different 'better' handwriting. A spy of the originals would be interesting.
spurious is offline  
(2) thanks from:
09-02-2019, 18:50   #1898
Deja Boo
Registered User
 
Deja Boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 2,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SophieLockhart View Post
I have two questions if you don't mind -

On this entry the 'husband' is circled. Does this mean the registrar doubts if he actually was the husband? And in fact I can't find a marriage record for the two names in question.
Long shot, but .....might this possibly be them?
Deja Boo is offline  
09-02-2019, 21:16   #1899
tabbey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by SophieLockhart View Post
I have two questions if you don't mind -

On this entry the 'husband' is circled. Does this mean the registrar doubts if he actually was the husband? And in fact I can't find a marriage record for the two names in question.



And here we have 'medical attendant' deceased. Does this refer to the actual medical attendant and is it unusual to include that piece of info?



Thanks.
The circle should be around the mispelled Medical Attendant, rather than the Husband which is correctly spelled.

Medical attendant merely means that the cause of death was certified by a medical doctor who attended the patient, as distinct from No medical Attendant where the patient was not seen by a doctor.
tabbey is offline  
Advertisement
09-02-2019, 21:24   #1900
New Home
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 53,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by tabbey View Post
The circle should be around the mispelled Medical Attendant, rather than the Husband which is correctly spelled.

Medical attendant merely means that the cause of death was certified by a medical doctor who attended the patient, as distinct from No medical Attendant where the patient was not seen by a doctor.
I disagree, every other record on the page reads either "certified" or "no med. attend.", so I would say spurious is right (the medical attendant may have died after the death of this lady, but before her death was reported, and maybe that's why "Husband" is circled, perhaps to indicate that the doctor had been present too but could not certify the death having died himself).
Pure speculation on my part, of course.
New Home is offline  
(2) thanks from:
09-02-2019, 22:26   #1901
SophieLockhart
Registered User
 
SophieLockhart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 55
Thanks indeed for all the help.

@Deja Boo I did see that entry but I don't believe either John or his father would have their occupation listed as 'gentlemen'. They were reasonably prosperous farmers but not of that rank afaik. Thanks indeed for finding a similar entry which might imply there was nothing significant about my entries being circled.

The family were quite a colourful bunch with various court cases and infighting going on, so it wouldn't have surprised me if the registers didn't paint a fully truthful picture either!

Thanks again.
SophieLockhart is offline  
Thanks from:
15-02-2019, 00:08   #1902
spurious
Category Moderator
 
spurious's Avatar
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy....11/4644993.pdf

Last two entries on that page.
Both have what looks like 'mother' listed as the informant for deaths of an 80 and 90 year old. That can't be right, can it? Am I misreading it?
spurious is offline  
15-02-2019, 00:17   #1903
srmf5
Registered User
 
srmf5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 190
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurious View Post
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy....11/4644993.pdf

Last two entries on that page.
Both have what looks like 'mother' listed as the informant for deaths of an 80 and 90 year old. That can't be right, can it? Am I misreading it?
It looks like mother to me too. It looks like it was a mistake that went unnoticed. The second last entry looks like it could possibly be 30 instead of 90 but the last one is definitely 80.

Edit: Roots Ireland record the second last entry as 30.
I notice that the last entry was for a Catholic priest. The informant was hardly a nun with a title like mother superior possibly? It seems like a bit of a stretch but it's all that I can think of if it's not a mistake.

Last edited by srmf5; 15-02-2019 at 00:28.
srmf5 is offline  
Thanks from:
15-02-2019, 00:20   #1904
Jellybaby1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by srmf5 View Post
It looks like mother to me too. It looks like it was a mistake that went unnoticed. The second last entry looks like it could possibly be 30 instead of 90 but the last one is definitely 80.

I'd go with 30 for the second last one too. I notice that the last entry the deceased was a priest, any chance the informant might have been a Reverend Mother? Just a wild guess.
Jellybaby1 is offline  
15-02-2019, 00:28   #1905
spurious
Category Moderator
 
spurious's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jellybaby1 View Post
I'd go with 30 for the second last one too. I notice that the last entry the deceased was a priest, any chance the informant might have been a Reverend Mother? Just a wild guess.
Oh that's a possibility, though I would have thought a nun would be able to sign her name. I notice the other person is listed as an imbecile, god help her, who may have been in the care of nuns too.

It's a strange page. The first death has almost the same name as the informant of the last. Spooky.

**edit. Checking the 1901 census, there are a number of likely 'M.A.' and 'B.C.' candidates in the convents in Waterford. It may have been a term for a nun.

Last edited by spurious; 15-02-2019 at 00:33.
spurious is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet