6

There is a brief mention of an ancestor in a couple of Staffordshire newpapers:

2 October 1830 DIED John Wright age 24 of Tettenhall late of Kidderminster and formerly of Wolverhampton

In 1828 when he married (in Hanbury, Worcestershire) he was shown as being 'of the parish of Kidderminster'.

In March 1830, when his son was baptised in Wolverhampton, his abode was shown as Wolverhampton.

It looks probable that he was buried in Wolverhampton in October 1830.

Tettenhall or Tettenhall Regis was a small village a couple of miles from Wolverhampton, and there is a candidate baptism for a John Wright in 1805 in Tettenhall. There is another candidate baptism for him in 1810 in Wolverhampton (noting a birth in 1806).

When the newspaper(s) describe him as 'of Tettenhall' is that likely to mean he was resident in Tettenhall at the time of his death? Or that he came originally from there? Or either, or neither?

4

I would simply interpret "of Tettenhall" as being John's current abode – but I do not think that anything more can be inferred.

John may or may not have died at Tettenhall. In the same way, burial records often include abode, but do not typically include place of death.

I agree with the other answers in that Kidderminster and Wolverhampton were previous places of residence, with Kidderminster being more recent. Again I would hesitate to infer anything more than this based on this death notice alone.

Unfortunately I do not think anything stated in this death notice particularly helps determine which baptism is correct. Given the close proximity of these two places other sources are needed to work out which baptism is correct.


I have just checked a couple of the newspaper notices and the wording is different to that given in the question. Two notices read:

"On the 2nd inst., at Tettenhall, Mr. John Wright, aged 24, late of Kidderminster, and formerly of Wolverhampton." (Worcester Journal, 7 Oct 1830)

"On the 2nd instant, at Tettenhall, Mr. John Wright, aged 24, late Kidderminster, and formerly of this town." (Wolverhampton Chronicle, 6 Oct 1830)

Based on this, it shows that John died at Tettenhall, not that he was of Tettenhall. This does not particularly clarify whether John had lived at Tettenhall for one day or a decade, but it is important to make this distinction. I would guess that he had lived at Tettenhall a relatively short amount of time, but that is nothing more than a guess.

| improve this answer | |
  • In my experience, if the person died somewhere other than where they lived the newspapers state "... died at <place> ..." followed by the person's name and details. – sempaiscuba Mar 16 '19 at 12:01
  • @sempaiscuba I would generally agree – I have edited my answer to include the actual wording from the newspaper entries, which is "at" not "of". – Harry Vervet Mar 16 '19 at 14:06
  • 1
    Bad ColeValleyGirl! I did a quick and dirty transcription in the middle of some other research and didn't go back to check it. – ColeValleyGirl Mar 17 '19 at 9:09
3

I would always interpret "Joe Bloggs of ..." in an newspaper obit as meaning the place where Joe Bloggs died. In this case, that should mean that John Wright was resident in Tettenhall at the time of his death.

The phrase "... late of Kidderminster" suggests that he moved to Tettenhall from Kidderminster.

This would appear to match the information in the marriage record. On that basis, I'd assume the couple moved to Tettenhall after they married.

I would interpret the phrase "... and formerly of Wolverhampton" as meaning that he came to Kidderminster from Wolverhampton.


Given John's age, that might well also mean that his family were still living in Wolverhampton when he died, which would correspond nicely with your record of his probable burial in Wolverhampton in October 1830.

| improve this answer | |
0

"Of town" can mean different things depending on context. Because the paper takes the time to give two other residences, my interpretation is as follows:

  • of Tettenhall: Born and (probably) raised there.

  • late of Kidderminster: Lived there most recently. Does not have to be the place of death, as people travel for medical care or other reasons.

  • and formerly of Wolverhampton: He lived there at some point in his adult life, probably for an extended period of time.

But he clearly moved around more than that, so it's not very clear.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    That's not how newspaper stories generally work though. A story stating "Fred Smith of Burton on the Wolds yesterday presented a petition ..." doesn't mean that he was born in Burton on the Wolds, but that he was living there when the story was written. Similarly, "Joe Bloggs of no fixed abode ..." isn't a reference to where he was born. It simply means that Joe Bloggs doesn't currently have a permanent address. – sempaiscuba Mar 16 '19 at 1:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.