• Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

  • If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  • This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  • It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here

Strange Entry

Heather

Heather

LostCousins Member
I have just seen what I think is a rather strange entry on the Deceased Online site. It reads under the heading Roman Catholic Portion, Register of Burials in the burial ground of Blackburn dated 1871 " Amputated Leg of James Marsden, The Infirmary Blackburn, 7th April" The Infirmary was the main Hospital in Blackburn into the 1970's. Has anyone ever seen a similar entry when searching burial records?
 
Heather said:
I have just seen what I think is a rather strange entry on the Deceased Online site. It reads under the heading Roman Catholic Portion, Register of Burials in the burial ground of Blackburn dated 1871 " Amputated Leg of James Marsden, The Infirmary Blackburn, 7th April" The Infirmary was the main Hospital in Blackburn into the 1970's. Has anyone ever seen a similar entry when searching burial records?
Click to expand...

Is the amputated leg as a cause of death - or is it a death certificate/burial for the leg itself?
 
Have you found his burial? Presumably the intention would have been to reunite him with his leg in death.
 
peter said:
Have you found his burial? Presumably the intention would have been to reunite him with his leg in death.
Click to expand...

James Marsden is not the person I was looking for when I came across this strange entry, the leg entry was just on the same page as my ancestor. There are lots of James Marsden burials in this cemetery after 7th April 1871 but as Pauline said he is not in the same grave as his leg, which I presume was buried before the rest of him. There is no relationship or address stated on the leg entry so probably it would be impossible to find out anything further about this poor man.

Something else I found out whilst searching burial records was that some females were described as " Rel of John" which I took to be " relative of John" a strange way to describe someone who I knew to be John's wife. Yesterday I saw an entry which described an ancestor as being "Relict of William" not having come across that word before I now know that it means widow, you learn something every day.
 
With apologies to the more squeamish among us (which includes me!), the infirmary would have had to do something with an amputated leg, and incineration may not have been an option for them.

Perhaps the surprising thing here is that the burial was recorded in the ordinary register, but maybe the person then in charge was erring on the side of caution, particularly if there might have been grave robbers around.
 
Heather said:
Yesterday I saw an entry which described an ancestor as being "Relict of William" not having come across that word before I now know that it means widow, you learn something every day.
Click to expand...
You'll also see it on headstones and in wills. It's sometimes used to distinguish between someone who was 'a widow' and the person who was 'the widow'.
 
There were 4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire according to The Beatles ("they had to count them all"), but I reckon this is probably the entry (from Deceased Online) for the remaining remains of James Marsden (it was a pauper grave and someone who had only one leg was unlikely to be able to earn an income - or survive very long):

last name: Marsden
first names: James
burial date: 11 November 1871
location:Blackburn Cemetery (Lancashire)
 
Maybe there was some kind of religious reason for burying his leg and attempting to (presumably) reunite him with it?

(Still can't get over the fact they buried the bloke's amputated leg in its own grave!)
 
jorghes said:
Still can't get over the fact they buried the bloke's amputated leg in its own grave!
Click to expand...
It wasn't actually in a grave by itself - there was a stillborn child buried in the same grave about a fortnight later, and another (unrelated?) burial in it in 1907.
 
The 1871 census shows a 22 year old James Marsden in the infirmary. Since this census was taken just a few days before the burial on 7 April, maybe this was him?
 
Pauline said:
The 1871 census shows a 22 year old James Marsden in the infirmary. Since this census was taken just a few days before the burial on 7 April, maybe this was him?
Click to expand...
Seems very likely. The death of a James Marsden aged 23 was registered in Blackburn in the 2nd quarter of 1872, so he must be a likely candidate.
 
Pauline said:
It wasn't actually in a grave by itself - there was a stillborn child buried in the same grave about a fortnight later, and another (unrelated?) burial in it in 1907.
Click to expand...

Obviously a spare grave for a multitude of things.
 
peter said:
Seems very likely. The death of a James Marsden aged 23 was registered in Blackburn in the 2nd quarter of 1872, so he must be a likely candidate.
Click to expand...

Yes this is possibly him, he was buried in the Catholic section and was 23 years old, son of William and Elizabeth of 9 Pickup Street, great detective work by all, thanks.
 
Heather said:
Yes this is possibly him, he was buried in the Catholic section and was 23 years old, son of William and Elizabeth of 9 Pickup Street, great detective work by all, thanks.
Click to expand...
But has anyone found William & Elizabeth? I had a quick look but neither of the couples I found were living in Pickup Street - indeed, when I searched the 1871 Census by address Findmypast didn't appear to have heard of it.

I'd like to write about this unusual story in my newsletter.
 
peter said:
But has anyone found William & Elizabeth? I had a quick look but neither of the couples I found were living in Pickup Street - indeed, when I searched the 1871 Census by address Findmypast didn't appear to have heard of it.
Click to expand...

This is a tricky one as I think James' birthplace in 1871 - Wharton - may be incorrect. Also, his father may have married again in 1869. So my best guess for 1871 is : RG10 4179 Fo: 42 p25. And in 1861: RG9 3140 Fo: 89 p11.

This assumes that "Wharton" meant Walton [le Dale].

I'd like to write about this unusual story in my newsletter.
Click to expand...

Don't forget a "squeamish" warning! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top