On 26/05/2013 09:59, Piercefield wrote: > Phil C. wrote, Friday, May 24, 2013 4:15 PM > >> They are both from GRO. I notice that the >> number in far left hand column are different - >> 152 and 172. Same registrar for both. > > What did the GRO have to say about them ? > I've received reply - <<I have checked both entries and 152 should not be issued as it was superceded by the entry at 172. Entry 172 was issued by the Coroner. There is also a slight discrepancy on the age of death too? There is no information available to explain the actions which happened so long ago. Possibly someone queried her cause of death? >> That's as far as we'll get then. Perhaps a relative was disappointed not to receive a legacy, or something <shrug>. Still, it was useful for me to get info from both certs. Confirms husband's name and now I know he was in the army - I suppose that's serendipitous. -- Phil C.

On Fri, 31 May 2013 18:41:29 +0100, "Phil C." <philtrum@fsmail.net> wrote: >On 26/05/2013 09:59, Piercefield wrote: >> Phil C. wrote, Friday, May 24, 2013 4:15 PM >> >>> They are both from GRO. I notice that the >>> number in far left hand column are different - >>> 152 and 172. Same registrar for both. >> >> What did the GRO have to say about them ? >> >I've received reply - ><<I have checked both entries and 152 should not be issued as it was >superceded by the entry at 172. >Entry 172 was issued by the Coroner. >There is also a slight discrepancy on the age of death too? >There is no information available to explain the actions which happened >so long ago. >Possibly someone queried her cause of death? >> > >That's as far as we'll get then. Perhaps a relative was disappointed not >to receive a legacy, or something <shrug>. Still, it was useful for me >to get info from both certs. Confirms husband's name and now I know he >was in the army - I suppose that's serendipitous. > Do you know where she was buried ? If there was need for an "out of England" certificate from the Coroner then that could have prompted an inquest.