Author Topic: Why were these deaths registered so late  (Read 701 times)

Offline Jo6100

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Why were these deaths registered so late
« on: Wednesday 31 July 19 17:13 BST (UK) »
I was perusing my great grandmotherís 1911 census entry and thought I would try and find the 6 ( of 17) children who did not survive. I didnít even find all the surviving children for some reason but I did find what appeared to be a set of twins both recorded on the same page (1893 D quarter Pancras Vol 01b p10): Jane and Anthony Sullivan. Looking for the deaths I found what seemed to be the same babies, however the deaths were recorded 1893, J quarter, Pancras 01B p3, I.e. earlier than the births.

Iíve now received the pdfs for Janeís birth and death which shows the birth and death occurring on 17/4/1893 due to prematurity and asthenia (weakness). The death was recorded on 20/4/1893 ( by an aunt, Ē in attendance ď) but the birth not until 1st November by the mother.  Iíd assume it was the same for the other baby.

How unusual would this be? I thought there was a 42 day limit to record births. It seems likely my great grandmother might have been unwell as the aunt registered the deaths but how would they miss the births?

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance

Jo

Offline avm228

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 24,796
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Why were these deaths registered so late
« Reply #1 on: Wednesday 31 July 19 17:17 BST (UK) »
Perhaps everyone assumed that the aunt had dealt with both, but it later emerged that she hadn't?

Deaths had a much shorter time limit so the immediate urgency would have been to get the deaths registered and perhaps to provide the death certificates to the undertaker so that burial could take place.
Ayr: Barnes, Wylie
Caithness: MacGregor
Essex: Eldred (Pebmarsh)
Gloucs: Timbrell (Winchcomb)
Hants: Stares (Wickham)
Lincs: Maw, Jackson (Epworth, Belton)
London: Pierce
Suffolk: Markham (Framlingham)
Surrey: Gosling (Richmond)
Wilts: Matthews, Tarrant (Calne, Preshute)
Worcs: Milward (Redditch)
Yorks: Beaumont, Crook, Moore, Styring (Huddersfield); Middleton (Church Fenton); Exley, Gelder (High Hoyland); Barnes, Birchinall (Sheffield); Kenyon, Wood (Cumberworth/Denby Dale)

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,798
    • View Profile
Re: Why were these deaths registered so late
« Reply #2 on: Wednesday 31 July 19 17:25 BST (UK) »
Under the 1874 Act you had up to three months, and a maximum of twelve months to register the birth. This is what the 1874 Registration Act says about late registration

1874 SECOND SCHEDULE.
Fees to Registrars and "Superintendent Registrars.
Upon the registration of a birth when the child is more than three months old, if it is 'not more than twelve months old, to superintendent registrar two shillings and sixpence, and to the registrar (unless the delay is occasioned by his failure to issue a requisition, or otherwise by his default) two shillings and sixpence, and if it is more than twelve months old, and is registered with the authority of the Registrar General, to superintendent registrar five shillings, and to registrar (unless the delay is occasioned by his failure to issue a requisition or otherwise by his default) five shillings, to be paid by the informant or declarant. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1874/88/pdfs/ukpga_18740088_en.pdf


Stan
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk


Offline Jo6100

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Why were these deaths registered so late
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday 31 July 19 17:34 BST (UK) »
Thank you both,

Jo

Offline Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,683
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Why were these deaths registered so late
« Reply #4 on: Wednesday 31 July 19 21:06 BST (UK) »
Perhaps the parents weren't aware that the births should have been registered if the babies lived for a very short time. Were times of birth recorded?
Cowban

Offline Jo6100

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Why were these deaths registered so late
« Reply #5 on: Thursday 01 August 19 08:43 BST (UK) »
Hi maidenstone,

The time of birth and death is shown on the certificates but have been misremembered or confused over the months as Jane is shown as dying at 8 30 am aged 1/2 hour but in the later birth cert the birth is recorded as 5 30 pm. I was too mean to buy both babiesí certificates so donít know if the little boy was similar. 

Jo

Offline chris_49

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,211
  • Unknown Father - swiving then vanishing since 1750
    • View Profile
Re: Why were these deaths registered so late
« Reply #6 on: Thursday 01 August 19 09:10 BST (UK) »
It's true that if a baby died very young there might be an assumption that the birth reg wasn't needed, the death cert thought to suffice. I have Edith Boyston Skelsey died 1890 Leeds aged 0, no birth that remotely fits. It took some effort to establish that she almost certainly wasn't one of mine.
 
Skelcey (Skelsey Skelcy Skeley Shelsey Kelcy Skelcher) - Warks, Yorks, Lancs <br />Hancox - Warks<br />Green - Warks<br />Draper - Warks<br />Lynes - Warks<br />Hudson - Warks<br />Morris - Denbs Mont Salop <br />Davies - Cheshire, North Wales<br />Fellowes - Cheshire, Denbighshire<br />Owens - Cheshire/North Wales<br />Hicks - Cornwall<br />Lloyd and Jones (Mont)<br />Rhys/Rees (Mont)

Offline jonw65

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,160
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Why were these deaths registered so late
« Reply #7 on: Thursday 01 August 19 09:27 BST (UK) »
I was too mean to buy both babiesí certificates so donít know if the little boy was similar. 

Register of Burials at St Pancras Cemetery (in Finchley)
Jane + Anthony Sullivan
28 April 1893, residence 8 Seaton Street
Age for both half an hour
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CSJ7-BKJC?i=432&cat=1060290

Also on ancestry

Offline Jo6100

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Why were these deaths registered so late
« Reply #8 on: Thursday 01 August 19 09:41 BST (UK) »
Thank you so much. Iím on Ancestry but didnít see these! I keep forgetting to look on family search q

Jo