Genealogy Chat

I have already posted this on the Records Office Boards, and no one has replied yet but am tearing my hair out to know why would a fellow inmate be able to register a death? My 4xgreat gran Sarah Bradford died in St Marylebone Workhouse in 1851, and I researched the informant's name, it was an Elizabeth Mockford 'present at death', who I have just looked up on my 1851 Census CD set and she was a fellow inmate. Why would a fellow inmate register a death if Sarah had two grown up sons, one aged 22 the other 38? Or why not the workhouse master instead? I have never come across this before. Sarah had been in the workhouse for 2 years due to illness. Any ideas please? Ben

I've got one similar from 1872. Rellie died in St Pancras workhouse aged 82. Several grown children, but I don't suppose they were around at the time - not living particularly near and had all gone their separate ways several decades earlier (if they had been known to the overseers, one of them would probably have had to have mum living with them rather than being supported by the parish!) Death was regisitered by another inmate who had been present at the death. I know the informant was another inmate as they were in the workhouse alongside my rellie on the 1871 census. I assumed they were friends and that the workhouse officials were too busy to bother with the death of an old lady..... Merry

Hi Merry Sarah's two children were living in Westminster and Shoreditch at the time of her death, so perhaps they didnt mind letting an inmate register their mum's death if she was present at her death. Sarah was 60 when she died and Elizabeth was 76 when registering death, as it was only 6 weeks before 1851 census. I do know that even if they had family, some people were sent to a workhouse as they were to ill, and if Sarah had been in the workhouse for two years, she probably was a close friend of Elizabeth and she nursed her during her final hours. Although before her admittace to the workhouse, Sarah was a witness to her eldest son's two weddings, registered his first wifes death in 1845 and one of his children in 1839. Ben

This is what http://home.clara*net/dixons/Certificates/indexbd.htm says about informants of death: ' In the early days, the informant was one of the following someone present at the death someone in attendance the occupier of a house the master or keeper of an institution The person present at the death or in attendance (which meant they had been nursing the deceased or in close contact with them during their illness) was also usually a relative, but the early registrations do not give the relationship of the informant to the deceased. It is always worth remembering with registrations before 1875 that an informant 'present at the death', with a name you might not recognise, could be a married daughter that you have had no information on since she left home, or a granddaughter or grandson, son-in-law or any other relative likely to have a different surname from the deceased . By 1875 the relationship of the informant to the deceased was given - together with additional qualifications such as 'present at the death' or 'in attendance'. People not related to the deceased but present at the death still qualified, but only 'present at the death' would be shown. The occupier (usually the owner) of a house or institution (usually the master of the workhouse) still qualified but in addition the following had been added a person who found the body ****inmate of a house or institution - this was a person living at the same address who knew of the event ***** person causing the burial person in charge of the body A relative of the deceased includes any relation by blood or by marriage so that - apart from the widow(er) of the deceased - daughters and sons, grandchildren, cousins, sons- or daughters-in-law, brothers- or sisters-in-law, second cousins, uncles, aunts, nephews and nieces, stepchildren and stepparents all qualify. The early registration will make no distinction between relatives by blood or by marriage so eg it will say brother whether it is a blood brother or a brother- in-law. Someone present at the death could simply have been the person who made a living by sitting with the dying and laying them out after death, or a close friend or neighbour and is not necessarily a relative. The more remote the relationship to the deceased, the less likely it is that the information they have given is accurate. This is even more true when the master of the workhouse has registered a death as the occupier of the institution where the death took place.' Hope this helps. nell

I just checked on the death cert of my gt gt gt grandfather Robert Chowns, who died in an almshouse and his death was registered by an illiterate fellow inmate. I think its probably that they wanted to expedite burial. As relatives in a workhouse/almshouse would be poor they wouldn/t have a grand funeral and their relatives would be people who would be some distance away and/or too poor to provide a posh funeral, otherwise they would have provided financially for these people while they were alive. nell

Hi Nell Her two sons were just normal printers so they probably wouldnt be able to afford a grand funeral, and Sarah's burial is at St Marylebone parish church 4 days after her death, probably organised by the workhouse, and she was sent into the workhouse because of illness in Dec 1848, and the admittace register says that is the reason for her admittace, so even though she had two grown children, she was told to go to the workhouse by a W Daniell, probably a local GP.