Sunderland burial record lookup

[rosie99]

A body washed ashore at Roker on December 13, 1902.  He was described as being about 45 years old.  His body was taken to the Monkwearmouth Mortuary.  From the description I am 95% sure that his name was John Williams.  Since he had no family in the Sunderland area, the burial record may have the wrong age and abode.  The name in the burial record might even be listed as "unknown".

How can you be sure that it was John Williams

[BradMajors]

A body washed ashore at Roker on December 13, 1902.  He was described as being about 45 years old.  His body was taken to the Monkwearmouth Mortuary.  From the description I am 95% sure that his name was John Williams.  Since he had no family in the Sunderland area, the burial record may have the wrong age and abode.  The name in the burial record might even be listed as "unknown".

How can you be sure that it was John Williams

I am not.  That is why I want to know the name given to this body in the burial records.  I don't know for sure if they were even able to identify the body.

[JenB]

He is quite possibly 'Unknown Male' aged 44, death registered Sunderland, 4th q. 1902.

[JenB]

I want to know the name given to this body in the burial records.

If he wasn't able to be identified then he would be buried as 'unknown', as you yourself have said.

[rosie99]

A body washed ashore at Roker on December 13, 1902.  He was described as being about 45 years old.  His body was taken to the Monkwearmouth Mortuary.  From the description I am 95% sure that his name was John Williams.  Since he had no family in the Sunderland area, the burial record may have the wrong age and abode.  The name in the burial record might even be listed as "unknown".

How can you be sure that it was John Williams

I am not.  That is why I want to know the name given to this body in the burial records.

Sorry, I was referring to this From the description I am 95% sure    

[stanmapstone]

it is useful if you set out all the facts at the outset 

I see you have now edited your original posting.

It is misleading to edit your original post after people have spent time and effort answering the first one.

Stan

[BradMajors]

it is useful if you set out all the facts at the outset 

I see you have now edited your original posting.

It is misleading to edit your original post after people have spent time and effort answering the first one.

Stan

No it isn't.  I never asked for or desired any answers.  I am only requesting a lookup.

This is a forum for requesting lookups.

[JenB]

it is useful if you set out all the facts at the outset 

I see you have now edited your original posting.

It is misleading to edit your original post after people have spent time and effort answering the first one.

Stan

No it isn't.  I never asked for or desired any answers.  I am only requesting a lookup.

This is a forum for requesting lookups.

We know this is a look-up forum.  I attempted to do a look up for you and received a very brusque reply after which you made a significant edit to your original post.

Stan is right. It is usual to add more information in extra posts, not to edit the original. Adding extra information in that way made our subsequent replies look silly.

[stanmapstone]

This post refers to John Williams, of Diamond Lane, Teignmouth who was the mate on the Teignmouth Schooner "Eliza Bain", lost with all hands on Tuesday 2nd December 1902, when it struck the South Pier at Sunderland.

Stan