Genealogy Chat

Ann Yes, you have hit the nail on the head, I think. The Vicar knew the family so didnt have any problems burying the body - after all, they were dead, werent they, and that was probably the only criteria the Vicar thought necessary (what else would you do with the body?). And certainly in the early years, the Registrar DID visit outlying districts, or was supposed to. It was his responsibility, rather than that of the individual, to register events. You can quite see how people did, literally, get away with murder in the early years of registration. Olde Crone

Death Registration was pretty useless, before 1875. You did not have to have a Doctor to certify death. You did not have to give a cause of death. You could make up a fictitious person who had died - allowing you to collect some money from the Burial Club/Friendly Society, into which you had been paying for this very scheme. You could murder someone (poison was extremely popular) and tell the Registrar they died of a poorly tummy. You did not need to produce either a Death Certificate (Doctors) or a Registration of Death Certificate (what we all mean when we talk about Death Certs) to have someone buried. The only way you were ever likely to get caught was: a sharp-eyed Funeral Director noticing the signs of poisoning (strychnine leaves signs on a dead body) or a family member or neighbour wondering why you had lost seven members of your family in three years when they appeared to be healthy. The Police and the Coroners were completely independant of each other at that time, and it required someone with a bit of know to bring such things to the attention of a Coroner. All these loopholes eventually caused such consternation (mostly from the Burial Clubs who were being defrauded) that it became mandatory for a Doctor to certify cause of Death BEFORE a death could be registered and for a Registration of Death Certificate to be produced before anyone could bury or cremate a body. Olde Crone

Merry No, she was two years old. I think you're right though, they probably just didn't call in a doctor. All the same, I'd have expected the cert to say 'Unknown' or suchlike rather than just leaving the space blank. Still, it's not a dead loss. The cert has proved a family link to Kent which had previously only been a conjecture on my part, so has broken down one of my brick walls. Andrew.

Deaths didn't have to be certified by a Dr at that date (not until.....um......about 1860ish).....so maybe the cause wasn't known......a Dr was not called.....the death was not suspicious, so no cause was given. Was the person old? My 3xg-grandfather died in 1859 aged around 80. His cause of deaths says ''Found dead in bed by neighbour'' which is almost as useless as yours! Merry

The death was 6th March 1844 at 10 a.m. (yes, it included the time, which I've also never seen on a death certificate before) and the registration was the next day, by a relative. Andrew.

Hi Andrew I have never actually seen one with the cause of death column left totally blank, but I have a couple from around that time where it says 'Unknown' - one says 'Unknown, uncertified'. So I would say, yes, probably not that uncommon. Tina

Sounds very odd. Is there a big gap between the date of death and the registration? nell

This morning I received a death cert from 1844 with the 'cause of death' column blank. Was this at all common at the time? I've never come across such a thing before, didn't even know it was allowed. Andrew.