Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: would you be offended  (Read 3070 times)

Offline greyingrey

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,246
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
would you be offended
« on: Monday 15 May 23 10:12 BST (UK) »
I've just come across this obituary....ive changed the names as a couple of the people are still alive,

Helen...loving wife of frank, loving mother to Chris and loving grandmother to Chloe

Chris was her only child and Chloe her only grandchild, but there is no mention of her daughter in law...who was seemingly still happily married to Chris.

do you think this is a bit rum or do you see it as a direct line obituary...would you expect the daughter in law to be. included...it is from the 1980s ???

Offline Kiltpin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,199
  • Stand and be Counted
    • View Profile
Re: would you be offended
« Reply #1 on: Monday 15 May 23 10:23 BST (UK) »
I would not have expected the daughter-in-law to be included. We would expect Helen to love her child, Chris, and her grandchild, Chloe, but do we know for a fact that she loved her d-i-l? Seeing as it was probably Frank who was paying for this, might he have had a different opinion of his d-i-l? 

Regards 

Chas
Whannell - Eaton - Jackson
India - Scotland - Australia

Offline aghadowey

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 52,687
    • View Profile
Re: would you be offended
« Reply #2 on: Monday 15 May 23 11:29 BST (UK) »
It really depends on the place and period (perhaps this was how obituaries were done in that area and time). When my grandmother died one of her daughters-in-law was a bit annoyed that she wasn't mentioned (none of the other daughters-in-law were mentioned either) but grandchildren were listed by name. However, that was the custom where she lived.
Away sorting out DNA matches... I may be gone for some time many years!

Offline manukarik

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,452
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: would you be offended
« Reply #3 on: Monday 15 May 23 11:32 BST (UK) »
Bear in mind also that obituaries are charged on a per word basis. So the more names the higher the cost. You have to draw the line somewhere!
Clarkson, Tolladay, Prevost, Killick, Hicks

Offline GR2

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,835
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: would you be offended
« Reply #4 on: Monday 15 May 23 12:17 BST (UK) »
Quote from: manukarik on Monday 15 May 23 11:32 BST (UK)
Bear in mind also that obituaries are charged on a per word basis. So the more names the higher the cost. You have to draw the line somewhere!

Reminds me of the story of a widow who was told that the first five words in a death notice were free. What appeared in the next morning's newspaper was:

FRED'S DEAD. VOLVO FOR SALE.

Offline Treetotal

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 28,518
    • View Profile
Re: would you be offended
« Reply #5 on: Monday 15 May 23 15:35 BST (UK) »
Maybe she wasn't a "Loving Mother-In-Law". As her son was an only child, she may have been very close to him and didn't think the DIL deserved a mention as she would have taken second place in her son's affection.
Carol
CAPES Hull. KIRK  Leeds, Hull. JONES  Wales,  Lancashire. CARROLL Ireland, Lancashire, U.S.A. BROUGHTON Leicester, Goole, Hull BORRILL  Lincolnshire, Durham, Hull. GROOM  Wishbech, Hull. ANTHONY St. John's Nfld. BUCKNALL Lincolnshire, Hull. BUTT Harbour Grace, Newfoundland. PARSONS  Western Bay, Newfoundland. MONAGHAN  Ireland, U.S.A. PERRY Cheshire, Liverpool.
 
RESTORERS:PLEASE DO NOT USE MY RESTORES WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION - THANK YOU

Offline fhtess1165

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • http://writingmypast.wordpress.com
    • View Profile
Re: would you be offended
« Reply #6 on: Monday 15 May 23 16:20 BST (UK) »
Also possible her d-i-l was dead, so not mentioned.

Quote from: greyingrey on Monday 15 May 23 10:12 BST (UK)
<SNIP>

do you think this is a bit rum or do you see it as a direct line obituary...would you expect the daughter in law to be. included...it is from the 1980s ???
Spong, Taylor, Ferdinando, Lawley, Cox, Sinkins, Morris, Sidney, Keel, Montgomery, Barlow, Izzard, Pearce, Warboys, River, Sherrell, White, Beake

Offline greyingrey

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,246
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: would you be offended
« Reply #7 on: Monday 15 May 23 19:47 BST (UK) »
the dil was still alive...I guess you cant judge it unless you know if there were particular customs in that area.

my brother. in law is a. doctor and. was. most put out when dr wasn't put in front of his name on his. mother in laws tribute..I did mutter. behind his back. that it didn't mention my school swimming certificate either... :)

Offline zetlander

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: would you be offended
« Reply #8 on: Monday 15 May 23 21:47 BST (UK) »
to go completely o/t.

Wasn't invited to my nephews wedding - no issue with that - they chose to have a very small wedding.
Sent then some money as a gift. (have always got on with nephew although we live a distance apart.)

They sent a wedding photo but it's a back view of the couple - they are both facing the hills in the distance - am I right to feel a tad offended or am I being a bit techy?
Pages: [1] 2 3