Re: Rhodes birth cert.
- From: Phil C. <philstoxicwaste@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:43:14 +0000
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 23:11:08 -0500, "T.M. Sommers" <tms@xxxxxx> wrote:
Phil C. wrote:
I've got an 1854 Chelsea birth cert for Sarah Ann Rhoades (sic).
Elsewhere family is always Rhodes but she's easy to identify as one of
twins. The informant is "X the mark of Eliza Rhoades, mother" Father
is given as James Rhoades.
But Eliza was married to John Rhodes, 1850, who had a brother and
father called James. She was able to sign her name.
I have the (US) Civil War pension file for my gg-grandfather, in
which his widow signed her name on some documents and made her
mark on others. Evidently it did happen that people who could
sign their names did not always do so, for whatever reason.
Yes. I don't draw any particular conclusion - just note it out of
interest. She may have carefully practised her name for her wedding
but never learned to write "Rhodes" (etc etc).
On a related theme I've got an ancestor who had two completely
different signatures. That confused me until I found both in the same
In 1851, however,
Eliza is at the house of her parents and given as widow
'Widowed' meant 'separated', in addition to its current meaning.
This was not a euphemism, but an actual meaning of the word.
Check the OED.
Still by that date? (I haven't got OED access.) My 1850 dictionary
gives only the modern meaning. But, again, I hadn't drawn any firm
conclusion that he'd died. "Widow" may have been wishful thinking on
the part of whoever gave the information. I haven't yet found any
likely trace of him living or dead. (I thought I had but it was an
Ancestry mistranscription of a man's age as 20 rather than 80.)
- Prev by Date: Re: Handwriting help, please
- Next by Date: Re: ONS and 50 year rule
- Previous by thread: Re: Rhodes birth cert.
- Next by thread: Re: Rhodes birth cert.