Genealogy Chat

I just got the death certificate for my great great great uncle. He was 29 when he died in 1856. Under Cause of Death, it says 'Not known. Not certified'. I have never seen this before - I've seen ones that say Old Age (which is fair enough), or even Natural Causes (after an inquest), but this seems a tad offhand. When did it become compulsory to have a death certified by a doctor, and at least a guess at the cause of death. How did the registrar know they were telling the truth - did they lug the body round to show him? Tina

They were a bit casual in those days tina...!! by the way-cant be havin that gt,gt,gt uncle malarky-tell me who he relates to and I'll get you a proper t itle !!! Is this the sibling of a gt,gt grandparent? If so he is a great ,great,grand uncle. One generation down =great grand uncle(i have one up the road !)

Tina It did not become Law until the 1870s that a Doctor had to certifiy the cause of death. Until then, no, they didnt even have to lug the body round to the Registrar - they just popped in a told him so and so had died, they made a guess at the cause, and he issued a Certificate. Because this system was being widely abused, by people who wished to claim Insurance, on people they had either invented, or bumped off, the Law had to change (pressure from the Insurance Companies and the Burial Clubs, LOL!). Incidentally, a DEATH CERTIFICATE is the bit of paper issued by a Doctor. The thing we send away for, and get, is a REGISTRATION OF DEATH CERTIFICATE - two different things. Olde Crone

Until 1874 it wasn't necessary to have a doctor's certificate as to cause of death before a death cert could be issued by the Registrar.Entering cause of death in a cert became a legal requirement in 1874. Before 1874 Registrars were only required to request a 'medical statement' as to cause of death. It was legally needed. I like the idea of dragging the body around to the Registrar but I think it was more a case Just 'saying' someone had died and guessing of what..!! Esta

Gosh, it must have been awfully easy to be a murderer in those days! Thank you all for the information, although I have to say, Alter, that in my family we have always used 'great' not 'grand' for aunts and uncles. My father's numerous aunts were always my great aunts, never my grand aunts. I rather think that the two forms are interchangeable, so I'll stick with the one I like. I suppose, Olde Crone, that if we are being truly technical what I have here is a certified copy of the registration of the death! Tina

tina,i use great aswell,but the grand bit is for the last generation away from you..... uncle great uncle great grand uncle great great grand uncle great great great grand uncle blah blah

Hi Alter I still think that the terms are interchangeable. In a previous incarnation I used to have regular dealings with firms who hunted down lost ancestors in connection with deceased estates, and most of them used the term great great uncle, rather than great grand uncle. Tina

Tina - I say great-great-great etc (sorry Alter!!). Isn't great-grand etc an American thing????? Merry

AS a child I had a number of 'great aunts' and a 'great great aunt' sisters and aunt of my grand mother, not grand or great grand aunt owhich I also believe is an american term for the same relationship. Oxford English dictionary has great-aunt a. an aunt of one's father or mother

if you read my posts youll see that i have acknowledged the great aunt term .Grand is added in later generations

Yes, I agree, now I think about it. I think it is an american affectation.

Not so long ago, I read a fascinating book about 19th century 'Murders for the Insurance' and Murder by poison - the two often went hand in hand. In the early 1800s, Forensic Medicine was in its infancy and it was very often impossible to detect that someone had been poisoned. The Poisoners were mostly women, but some men too. Their crimes only came to light when someone in the family, or a neighbour became suspicious, or, very rarely, a Doctor.If a Doctor did not attend them in their illness, then there was nothing to be suspicious about - the Poisoner certainly wasn't going to tell the Registrar, was she? Poison was easily available, for a few pence, to anyone who wanted it. Even when it became a 'listed' substance, you only had to sign the register to say what you wanted a ha'porth of Arsenic for - to kill the rats, was the usual thing. No-one knows how many people got away with this kind of murder, but it became apparent after several high-profile cases that it was being done for sometimes very small sums of money from the 'Burial Club' or the Insurance. One woman was only caught after poisoning eleven members of her family in eight years - she used to up sticks after every death and go somewhere else. Someone recognised her, thought it was very odd that she had lost eleven members of her family, mentioned it to her Policeman Hubby and the rest is History. Very few of these poisoners were what we would now class as Mentally Ill. Most were hard-boiled, greedy women who saw the chance to make a few bob. One tragic tale in the book, though, was that of the youngest poisoner ever to appear in court. She was a ten-year-old girl who was a skivvy to an elderly bed-ridden woman.She gave the woman enough Arsenic to kill the population of China and then went downstairs to carry on with her chores. When arrested and asked why she had done it, had the old lady been cruel to her, she said, 'No, she was very kind to me, but I missed Mother and Father so much and I wanted to go home. Father said I couldn't come home until my Mistress died' In an unprecedented act of compassion, the Judge ruled that the girl, although found guilty of murder, would be given over into the care of her father 'for all time'. The book gave fascinating insight into the Social conditions of the 19th century and the Laws that were, and were not, in place at the time. There was no law against incest with a female child. There was no legal age of consent to sexual intercourse, so paedophilia was a crime which simply did not exist - it was not illegal to have sex with a child. Whilst most people thought then, as we do now, that it was a disgusting perversion, there was nothing legally to be done about it. (How ever did I ramble onto THAT subject???) Olde Crone

Wow, Olde Crone, you are such a mine of fascinating information. It is good to know that occasionally the judiciary got it right, when you consider for what relatively minor offences people were hanged or transported. I am beginning to get slightly perturbed about your bed-time reading though! Lol! Tina