Here is one possible death date:
England & Wales, FreeBMD Death Index: 1837-1983
about Mabel Cahill
Name: Mabel Cahill
Estimated birth year: abt 1865
Year of Registration: 1905 (i.e. died in 1905)
Quarter of Registration: Jan-Feb-Mar
Age at Death: 40
DISTRICT: Ormskirk
County: Lancashire
Volume: 8b
Page: 565 (click to see others on page)
This is the only one in 'England and Wales' but I don't have 'Ireland.' But Ireland was then a part of the UK?Ryoung122 03:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply
- Yes, Ireland was part of the UK. However, she was born on April 2nd, 1863 (Collins (2010): History of Tennis), so she must have been 41 or 42 years old in 1905. I don't believe the date of death in the current version of the article (January 1st, 1905) either, although I'm aware that it's the same as on the Tennis Hall of Fame's website. Maybe the CMS of their website only accepts a full date as an input, so someone just entered 01/01/1905. Collins only says in 2010, that Cahill is "believed to" have died in Ireland in "1905 or 1906"; so even he knows nothing for sure. Anyway, as long as the place of death is missing here, and/or any more information about the circumstances of her death are given, I think the date of death should be removed again.--Kompakt (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
This entry starts with Mabel Esmonde Cahill (born 2 April 1863, Ballyragget, County Kilkenny, Ireland – died 1 January 1905, Ireland ) was a female tennis player from Ireland who was active in the late 19th century and was the first foreign woman to win a major tennis tournament. What is "foreign" supposed to mean in this context? Did the writer realise there are readers in Ireland who had not considered themselves to be foreign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.98.192 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
- "Foreign" means that as an Irish national she won the 1891 U.S. National Championships and thus became the first woman tennis player to win a Grand Slam tournament who was not a citizen of the country that organized the Grand Slam.--Wolbo (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
The table states that Cahill Wone two mixed doubles 1891 and 1892 but that competition was not offered in 1891 (check US Open mixed doubles champions list for example) so she won only one mixed doubles title - as is shown in the main text. This also means she won only one triple crown (error has been replicated elsewhere). Antipodenz (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
To be more accurate - the competition was not offered as an official part of the tournament so although she played in and won the 1891 mixed doubles final it could not be considered to be an official record (e.g. She won a total of five US Championships). Antipodenz (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
- That's a tough one to figure out how to handle. The US Championships are considered a major championship in 1891. Cahill absolutely won the mixed doubles played at the US Championships in 1891. But the mixed doubles event was not an "official" event at the US Championships in 1891. It would appear it was considered an exhibition event in 1891. It was a full fledged event in 1892. The newspapers I could find reported the mixed doubles just as they would the other events... with no exhibition mentioned. It should certainly be mentioned in the article, but not as a major win in the infobox. It has been corrected here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
_(cropped).jpg)
