1855 Death cert

[crayspond]

Hi,
Very interesting to see the Australian Register - i think naming the children, although a benefit to me was a bit over ambitious! What if the informant had no idea exactly how many children the person had - must have got confusing.
I just received my enhanced death cert and it is 100 % better - like it was written yesterday!

Ailsa

[Montrose Budie]

Hi,
Very interesting to see the Australian Register - i think naming the children, although a benefit to me was a bit over ambitious! What if the informant had no idea exactly how many children the person had - must have got confusing.
I just received my enhanced death cert and it is 100 % better - like it was written yesterday!

Ailsa

Hi Ailsa

That was one of the problems in 1855, especially with death registrations.

Good to hear about the rescanned image.

mb

[trish58]

Interesting post. I just love it when I find I have an 1855 record, the information is just great, on one of mine the Father had not only named all his children but the children who had died and the ages at their death so easy to then find other certificates from this sort of info.
The Australian records are also fantastic though I can't say the same for their prices, I have paid between $30 & $45 per certificate depending on which state you are applying, but their info is also great, it doesn't surprise me that a Scot had something to do with it.

Trish

[Currie]

Hello mb,

The man was William Henry Archer, 1825-1909. Here’s his entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/archer- ... henry-2895 It says he was born in London but I’ve read elsewhere that he had Scottish parents.

He migrated to Australia in 1852 and in 1853 became the Registrar General of the Colony of Victoria. The statutory registration system he introduced there I’ve often seen referred to as the Archer System.

It looks as though the Scottish system and that for three of the Australian colonies was based on the 1847 recommendations of the Scottish Registration Committee of the Council of the Statistical Society. Victoria was the first to adopt the recommendations in July, 1853, followed by Scotland, after several attempts over the previous decade, in January, 1855, and then New South Wales and Queensland in March, 1856.

The Journal of the Statistical Society of London published the Scottish Registration Committee recommendations of 1847, including prototype registration forms. The samples have been completed as if they were for English events but unfortunately the recommendations weren’t adopted there. See pages 282-287, very interesting reading. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Gqg ... 22&f=false

All the best,
Alan

[trish1]

Hi,
Very interesting to see the Australian Register - i think naming the children, although a benefit to me was a bit over ambitious! What if the informant had no idea exactly how many children the person had - must have got confusing.
I just received my enhanced death cert and it is 100 % better - like it was written yesterday!

Ailsa

What can be more interesting is when the informant knows all the details but tries to hide some of them. One of my relatives - late 1800s - was having children by her future husband at the same time as he was fathering children with his then wife. After the death of wife 1, my relative married the man & had a couple more children. On his death she listed all the children - from both wives - but adjusted all the ages so everyone was born in the right sequence without the thought of any impropriety. From my research in a couple of other cases, known, but illegitimate, children were also not reported on death certificates. So even a basic primary source of data can contain errors - sometimes by design - sometimes accidental.

Having been involved with providing the information for a number of family death certificates - the most difficult information to provide has been the deceased place of birth. Unless you have a birth certificate for verification this is often not known. Both my parents were not born in the locality where their parents lived as was the case with my MIL.

Trish

[Montrose Budie]

Hi Alan

As the saying goes down your way - Ya Beaut !!

That Royal Statistical Society Paper is the jigsaw piece that's been I've been missing.

Your post reminds me of much info that has faded from my mind in the last several years since this project went onto the back burner.

As a member of the [Royal] Statistical Society (I'm unsure when the 'R' was awarded!), and an actuary, I'm certain that William Henry ARCHER would have been on the relevant committee, or, at very least, fully aware of the recommendations of the Scottish Registration Committee of the Council of the Statistical Society.

I first became interested in this area approaching 15 years ago when I was fascinated by the very close similarity between the Victorian and Scottish records, and via various bits and pieces of info here and there, thereby being convinced that there had to be a link; and then became convinced that William Henry ARCHER had to be the link, as now evidenced by the RSA paper.

He was known to have emigrated, but this paper is the missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle from my end.

Despite extensive contact with libraries in Scotland and Australia, as well as Oz FHSs, never mind the Registrars General in Edinburgh and Melbourne, no-one was able to come up with a definitive link, altho' some folk did admit to knowledge of William Henry ARCHER, and admitted that there was a possibility that the very similar formats had a common origin.

After this lack of success, as with other projects, I just put it onto the back burner.


I can only repeat, - Ya Beaut !!


BTW, if anyone wants to have a bit more detail on the history of Scottish civil registration, starting with the first Bill in 1829 look no further that Anne Cameron's excellent paper at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2576279/

This includes the fact that registration bills for Scotland were brought into parliament [in London] in 1829, 1830, 1834, 1835, 1837, 1847, 1848, 1849, and 1854. Those of 1830, 1848, and 1849 were introduced and passed in the House of Lords, but failed in the House of Commons.

So, at least we tried 4 times before England got there in 1837 !

Hello mb,

The man was William Henry Archer, 1825-1909. Here’s his entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/archer- ... henry-2895 It says he was born in London but I’ve read elsewhere that he had Scottish parents.

From where I got the info that he was Scottish, or had Scottish connections I know not. He's easy to track down in 1851 in England, still living with his parents, all of whom are shown as born in London.

The grandparents?, - wha kens ?!

He migrated to Australia in 1852 and in 1853 became the Registrar General of the Colony of Victoria. The statutory registration system he introduced there I’ve often seen referred to as the Archer System.

It looks as though the Scottish system and that for three of the Australian colonies was based on the 1847 recommendations of the Scottish Registration Committee of the Council of the Statistical Society. Victoria was the first to adopt the recommendations in July, 1853, followed by Scotland, after several attempts over the previous decade, in January, 1855, and then New South Wales and Queensland in March, 1856.

The Journal of the Statistical Society of London published the Scottish Registration Committee recommendations of 1847, including prototype registration forms. The samples have been completed as if they were for English events but unfortunately the recommendations weren’t adopted there. See pages 282-287, very interesting reading.
All the best,

Alan

Very interesting reading indeed.

For anyone wondering why a statistical society should be interested in such a subject, the answer is very simple. The info provided in civil registration documents was of the greatest possible interest to insurance company actuaries.

mb

[Montrose Budie]

Hi,
Very interesting to see the Australian Register - i think naming the children, although a benefit to me was a bit over ambitious! What if the informant had no idea exactly how many children the person had - must have got confusing.
I just received my enhanced death cert and it is 100 % better - like it was written yesterday!

Ailsa

What can be more interesting is when the informant knows all the details but tries to hide some of them. One of my relatives - late 1800s - was having children by her future husband at the same time as he was fathering children with his then wife. After the death of wife 1, my relative married the man & had a couple more children. On his death she listed all the children - from both wives - but adjusted all the ages so everyone was born in the right sequence without the thought of any impropriety. From my research in a couple of other cases, known, but illegitimate, children were also not reported on death certificates. So even a basic primary source of data can contain errors - sometimes by design - sometimes accidental.

Having been involved with providing the information for a number of family death certificates - the most difficult information to provide has been the deceased place of birth. Unless you have a birth certificate for verification this is often not known. Both my parents were not born in the locality where their parents lived as was the case with my MIL.

Trish

Hi Trish

This was ever the problem in Scotland, even up to the present day, as the registrar has no powers to require informants for birth and death registrations to prove the info that they report, other than, in the case of a death, the medical certificate of death from the GP or the hospital doctor. [Let's not get complicated in terms of situations where the Procurator Fiscal becomes involved.]

In other words, no requirement to present info proving other info reported, such as details of spouse[s], and names of parents in the case of a death registration.

As can be imagined this is a recipe for wrong info being reported, even if the informant is the spouse, witness frequent misreporting of the deceased's mother's maiden surname.

Change the informant to a son or daughter, or, worse, to a son-in-law or daughter-in-law, and things only get even worse.

Beyond such a close relationship between the deceased and the informant ???? ..................

Of course it's always been the case that informants do their best to get the info correct, but the understandable stresses surrounding a death don't help.

A marriage is a bit different as there has to be a schedule completed and signed off by the celebrant, but that's the only situation where the registrar can require the presentation of documentation to support the act of registration, other than the medical certificate of death.

These days, if someone checks the info required for a death registration, the GROS site lists certain documents that are preferred, - giving the appearance that these documents are required, - but these are not legal requirements ! (other than the medical certificate of death.)

And these days, most, but still not all registrars, are connected into the GROS electronic database, so that the info reported can be checked in minutes, and queried if there is a conflict.

mb

[Currie]

Hello mb,

I feel as if I’ve found the Rosetta Stone, or the Missing Link. I’m very pleased that I could help.

All the best,
Alan