Late husband/wife

PatrickT · Post by **PatrickT** » 01 Feb 2008 14:21

I'm going through a parish register where, in some burials, the incumbent had a habit of putting e.g. Thomas Dagless late husband of Anne.

I can't decide whether the 'late' refers (1) (superfluously) to the person being buried or (2) to their husband/wife. In the case above this is relevant as there are two burials of an Anne Daglass, one a few years before that of Thomas and one a few years after.

Any thoughts?

ID:2735

arshawbrown · Post by **arshawbrown** » 01 Feb 2008 16:15

I have several parish register entries that read (e.g.) William son of William Brown and his wife Eliza late Bowers. This has proved to be her maiden name on most occaisions. I have not yet come across this for burials however I would imagine that it refers to the deceased.

pwe · Post by **pwe** » 01 Feb 2008 21:13

Patrick,
I believe that in this case it is the husband that has been buried, after all at the time of his burial he is 'late' ie deceased.
If it were the wife being buried I have seen Mary Smith wife of John Smith or if her husband had pre-deceased her then Mary Smith widow of John Smith.
Peter E

PatrickT · Post by **PatrickT** » 02 Feb 2008 10:10

Perhaps I should clarify. Is it the burial of (the late) Thomas, husband of Anne, or of Thomas, husband of (the late) Anne? It seems probable that it's the former, but in that case why not just use the more normal Thomas, husband of Anne?

jmurphy · Post by **jmurphy** » 05 Feb 2008 17:38

Could it be (3) the deceased had multiple wives, and Anne is his most recent one?

Jan

jmurphy · Post by **jmurphy** » 20 Mar 2008 06:21

arshawbrown said:
I have several parish register entries that read (e.g.) William son of William Brown and his wife Eliza late Bowers. This has proved to be her maiden name on most occaisions. I have not yet come across this for burials however I would imagine that it refers to the deceased.

Juat got my April issue of Your Family History / Your Family Tree, and in the article explaining certifcates, they say that when a woman is called 'Eliza late Bowers' then she has been married previously and Bowers is her most recent married name (if it were her maiden name it is more likely to read 'the former Eliza Bowers' rather than 'late').

This usage is what prompted my earlier posting where I guessed that 'late' should be read as 'most recent'.

Thus 'Thomas Dagless late husband of Anne' would refer to the Thomas Dagless who was married to Anne when he died, and not some other Thomas Dagless (i.e. his son, nephew, or some other fellow of the same name).

Jan

hf · Post by hf » 29 Mar 2008 09:55

'Late' would general mean 'deceased'.
I quote the Oxford English Dictionary: '(the/one's late) (of a person) no longer alive: his late wife.
[The last three words should be italicised].
This is standard usage of the phrase and should always refer to deceased.

Tombaston · Post by **Tombaston** » 30 Mar 2008 10:01

I first discovered 'late' in this context used on the second marriage certificate for one of my great great grandmothers. She is described as Sarah late Wagstaff, formerly Day. I had no idea what this meant when I first met it, but by finding her first marriage certificate and her birth certificate, I can confirm it meant she was the widow of a man named Wagstaff and her maiden name was Day. It was confused further by her second husband also being Wagstaff. I later found from the Wagstaff ONS that her two husbands were sixth cousins twice removed, which she could not possibly have known.

Family Historian User Group