Why would a married woman be buried under her maiden name?

Question

This is about an ancestor, but there's little info about her other than this. She was born in 1819 and died in 1856, all in Ohio. A farmer's daughter, one of 7 children.  She was married in 1847.  They had 2 children, one born in 1850 was dead by 1860 census. The second born in 1854 and lived to adulthood (naming her in his marriage application as his birth mother).

No idea how she died, only that she died in August 1856.  She was buried under her maiden name, next to her parents (who died much later) and 2 sisters (one who died 1851, one who died much after her).  No grave for her firstborn that I found, but it could be there (in very bad shape, all of the tombstones).

But I am left to wonder why a woman would be buried under her maiden name and not her married name?  Perhaps she would choose to be buried with her family, but it seems curious no mention of her husband or children on the tombstone.  All that seems to be on the tombstone is her name, death date, age at death.   Her tombstone is very similar to those of her 2 sisters.

No newspaper articles or other paperwork in the area from those times. No family stories.

I don't know if her husband might have disowned her after death if she'd committed suicide (perhaps her child had died or she'd suffered post partum depression - I think these were simple Protestant families. (He remarried a year or two after her death).  Grasping at straws.

Comments

As I was working on my blog today (where I yack about things), I was uploading a picture of Catharine's gravestone.  Hers has her first name in bold, then in smaller print, "dau of J & L Mobberly"

This manages to give  the impression to those (like me) who weren't paying attention that she was unmarried.  

Her 2 spinster sisters have their first name and last name in large print - it doesn't say "dau of" -- obviously something intentional here. So perhaps she was divorced, and they did not want that known for eternity.

Answer 1

Brainstorming some other possible explanations:

Maybe her family owned the burial plot and didn't like her husband (or he refused to pay for a headstone) so they refused to put his name on her grave.

Maybe she had married against her parent's wishes and her parents refused to even recognize their marriage.

Maybe the person who carved the tombstone missed a line on the purchase order.

Maybe the headstone is a replacement for one that was damaged/worn and the married name was illegible on the burial register.

Comments

With the lack of records, I would imagine a divorce could have happened at some late point as well. I've seen ugly divorces from that period where the ex-wife reverts back to her maiden name. It's rare, but it happens. Pure speculation though without documented proof.

To add to this - thriving farmer families that I've seen from this period seem to pop out kids like a gumball machine, but it appears she had a tragic firstborn and only had one other child during a 9-year marriage. There may have been something more to that situation that made it less desirable to have the husband's name on the grave. Maybe their marriage was not so great, and he mistreated her, and in the end she died in a way that would leave her parents to lay the blame on him? Again, without a record of how or where she died, it's hard to tell.

---

Oh, I like this too!  

I forgot to put in my original comments that one of her brothers was married to one of her husband's sisters.  They lived out of the area (one county over) - not that there's much meaning in that, but interesting point.

It is hard to tell, but I love speculating!

---

I have seen gravestones where the woman's name was

Jane Maidename

wife of

John Marriedname

---

Me too!  And that wouldn't have seemed odd, but nowhere is her husband's name shown.  It also seemed odd that she was with her two spinster sisters, her mother and father, her 13 year old niece and a couple of infants boys (not hers).   It would seem you would be buried with your original family if you did not have another....

A friend of mine suggested also, perhaps she discovered her husband was having an affair (she died early in 1856, he was remarried by census in 1860 and living with his new wife  a 2 year old a 1 year old and their 6 year old).

The divorce idea seems plausible - or perhaps a suicide. Her family would certainly not have wanted her buried with her husband's name in that case.

---

A lot of women use their maiden name especially professionals because their qualifications are in that name and it makes life easier, though I think that is unlikely to have been the case with the person mentioned above...but a lot of people always refer to their childhood pals by their maiden names and don't even know their married names. It might just be a case of identity though it's strange not to use the married name as well.
I have always used both names when ordering headstones ie for my mum 'Alice Hills née Larner'. You could put born but for some reason in England it's still common practice to use the French née. It is quite usual to include both names in England but perhaps not elsewhere?

---

Annie,

It is certainly a mystery. You've suggested a variety of hypotheses about what might have happened. I suggest testing them by digging into the sources.

Found an obit? A death certificate? That's where I'd head.

---

Jilliane,

Believe me, I've tried! That's why I reached out, to see if there was some practice I'd missed. I'll keep trying, of course - perhaps some day I'll find something in the husband's family history. (I believe his older sister was married to her older brother, but other than the two of them, I've yet to find any members of the husband's family, including him, past 1860, 4 years after her death)  Next time I head to the Probate court there I'll see if there's anything at all, but if it was something "shameful" by 1850's standards, it may have been hushed up.

---

Christine,

It is more usual here to either not include the maiden name, or to include it - it is very unusual to totally ignore the husband's name, unless (and this would have been more unusual but not uncommon back in 1850) she had used her maiden name in life and not her husband's name.  However, this practice was most often done if there were no sons in the line - she had 4 living brothers, so there would have been no need.

---

That early you may not find death certificates. But I bet they went to a church. Do you know? The LDS has microfilmed most non-Catholic church records through out a good portion of the western world.

---

@Jilliane -

Good idea -- familysearch.org records has been one of the sources I've used -- is there another way to access the LDS church records? Nothing has come up there from the Presbyterian church where the graves are --  most likely if they attended a church, this would have been the one.

There weren't any records for that church at the local library (which has an excellent genealogy section I used for a couple of days)

I could try to see if there's someone in the actual church who would know if there are records and if so, where they are!

---

The LDS hasn't put all its collection online yet. You may need to look at (shock!) actual microfilm of the original records. go to familysearch.org. Under Search, there should be Catalog or something like that. Enter the place in the search box.  A list of the various records microfilmed will appear, categorized by type. Look for Church Records. On that page you should see a list of all the churches from that location that have been microfilmed. Hopefully your Presbyterian church is there and has been microfilmed. Then you can order that microfilm to be delivered to your closest LDS family search center, where you can review the microfilm on their readers. You do not have to be mormon to use their family search centers.

---

I did that - only one church in the county has anything on there that have been microfilmed. Alas.  

Yes I'm onto their local family search centers!  They're amazing!

The Belmont County Genealogy Society also has microfilm in the local library, a whole room full of things - church records aren't  there, either. They also have copies of church docs, nothing from this church.  I'll still see if I can find a human being connected to the church who might know if there are records, next time I go.

It's a very small area, it appears most of what is getting done is by people who are doing research for their own family and then sharing it.  Most likely I won't get to this - Caroline was a gr gr gr aunt - and I suspect whatever happened may have been kept quiet.  More likely to find it in some kind of gossip than records (I will still look for things the next time I'm in Belmont County!)

From this is what historical fiction is born!  I'll write something on my blog and make it clear it's speculation...

Answer 2

I have lots of women (both French and English) buried under maiden names...I guess in some places it is done that way.

Comments

D. Ellis -  

 

Not so much here in those times, though. How nice if this was custom - so much easier for those of us trying to find the names of the women in our lines!  

I'm confident this was not the case for this one.

Answer 3

I have seen it, mostly second-hand, several times.  In one instance, the woman had actually murdered her husband (time served) and had even removed his name from her children, giving them her maiden name as well.  However, this is a rather famous case (Martha Curnutt - see Wikipedia for more information).

In another, it was a family plot and the stones were all the same style.  If I remember correctly, all the children were buried under their original names.  Perhaps it was because of when the plot was bought and how the names were listed on the original purchase.

Other than that instance, I would think that if it is a family plot, some discension regarding the marriage may be a factor.

I can't remember if this was one of those that I have come across myself or was part of a similar discussion - but there was also a possibility due to abandonment (not divorce) that the name carved in stone was her own.

What about in the case of multiple marriages where the spouses are buried elsewhere?  Just thinking.  Or if the name had local significance, being of a more prominent family than that of her husband - then the maiden name would most certainly be included but be the sole name listed?  I guess it is a possibility.

Perhaps the children burying the parent chose to severe the link with their father in that way.

Perhaps the stone was purchased prior to her marriage??

Comments

DK Clews,

I will look that case up, sounds fascinating!  The stories we don't know about these people are one of the things I love about genealogy - mysteries!

 In looking again at what was said on the 3 daughters' gravestones -  hers says "Catherine, dau of J & L Mobberly". Her sisters'  merely say their first name and Mobberly.  A subtle way of claiming her as their own. [I will have to look for divorce records when I go back to the area - they are not on-line.]

Or yes -- dissension about the marriage, dislike of the husband - perhaps divorce - or a nervous breakdown, a suicide, ill treatment, a suspicious death?   (Her child was only 6 and lived with the father, stepmother and 2 half sisters in 1860).

If I never know, I'll still be writing little possible stories about this. Lots of good ideas from people I wouldn't have thought of alone!