Why say he was dead?

[Phoenix]

I've just received a "wrong" death certificate. I'm glad, really, as it's the death of a baby girl who didn't belong to "my" Riley family.

It was really pathetic as the death was not registered by the mother, and the father was William Riley, seaman, deceased. The thought of losing your husband & then your six months baby doesn't bear thinking about.

Only it wasn't like that.

When I looked, William John Riley married Eliza Artlett on 30 March 1851. They were newly weds (!) with her Mum Mary Artlett in Portsea on the 1851 census.

But on the 1861 census, Eliza was a Gunner's, Royal Navy, wife with two younger children!

And in 1871 William is in the bosom of his family. In fact, he outlived Eliza & went on to marry Ellen Kent, a woman considerably his junior in 1897.

[Merry]

How do you know the baby belonged to this particular William and Eliza? The address?

[Phoenix]

The occupation & the fact that there aren't any other William Rileys getting married. The address is a wee bit problematic as it's slap bang between censuses. But it's the right neck of the woods. I need to do a bit of sorting out when I get home as I have extracted cemetery records for Portsea & there may be some extra clues there.

[Merry]

I can only imagine either the registrar got confused or William was at sea and hadn't returned from a voyage and Eliza actually thought he was dead. Seems unlikely, but always a possibility!

[Phoenix]

I suppose a ship could be late back. I've been looking for the informant, but she's no help at all. Choice of two & neither has a significant maiden name.

One "good" thing is that I've found someone in the workhouse in 1861. Now I know that "my" James Riley's lodger was Mary Ann Bodman, born Devereux & married to Henry Bodman in 1848. When I first saw the census entry in 1851, I read it as Bodmilla!

[Kit]

Maybe the husband wasn't the father or she said the father isn't here, ie at sea, but the registrar misunderstood.