Help deciphering death certificate needed

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:29 pm

Hi Russell

I would reckon that a diagnosis of 'Intemperance' carries with it shades of chronicity anyway (I had better lay off the vino and malt chasers for a while if I want to avoid the same diagnosis. )

Drinking two things at once - is that not synchronicity?

synchronicity is the experience of two or more occurrences (beyond coincidentally) in a manner that is logically meaningful- but inexplicable- to the person or persons experiencing them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Best wishes
Lesley

Russell · Post by **Russell** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:13 pm

No Lesley

It's 'Sinkdownicity' Only takes a few to bring you to your knees

Russell

Post by **emanday** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:24 am

Sorry to contradict , but the person registering the death is James Coubrough and I reckon that the last 'h' in dad William's name has spilled over into the 'cause of death' column.

Have to admit - I was a bit doubtful myself, but the mother's name (not the m.s. one), didn't seem to match after the final letter which appeared to be an upper case "C". Confusing!

Caroline · Post by **Caroline** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:30 pm

Just wanted to say a big thank you to all who helped decipher this.

I know that Margarets husband had a couple of children with a much younger woman a few years before she died and he married this woman a couple of months later. So I'm wondering did this other relationship come about because of her 'intemperance' or did she take to the bottle when he went off with the younger woman? Some things we'll never know.

Thanks again.

Caroline

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:42 pm

emanday wrote:
Sorry to contradict , but the person registering the death is James Coubrough and I reckon that the last 'h' in dad William's name has spilled over into the 'cause of death' column.
Have to admit - I was a bit doubtful myself, but the mother's name (not the m.s. one), didn't seem to match after the final letter which appeared to be an upper case "C". Confusing!

If you look very closely you can see that it matches, up to the last couple of letters, but the downcomer of the "g" has been obscured by the form's vertical line and/or faded, and there's a definite suggestion of a letter after that in the next column which could be the bottom part of an "h", i.e. the upcomer has faded.

David

Post by **emanday** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:55 pm

Ah! Now I see it! If I'd magnified it just a wee bit more I wouldn't have made that mistake.

Thanks David

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:30 pm

emanday wrote:Ah! Now I see it! If I'd magnified it just a wee bit more I wouldn't have made that mistake.

Thanks David

Nae prob at a', hen, - it's called 21 years experience

'N' nae need at a' for an apology.

And, perforce, I must admit that I'm not "seeing" it, just making a couple of deductions, based on that experience, plus what might be a mark on the lens of the microfilm machine, perchance a very faint hint of the upcomer of the "h", and I'd hate to bet money on the downcomer for the "g".

At NRH it's that much easier as you're allowed, in such circumstances, to have a look at the original register, and, most often, the interpretation of the entry is quite clear, not to say b****y obvious, leading you to question your eyesight.

I can't recall more than a handful at most of register entries where such an inspection of the original register didn't allow an immediate and obvious solution to the interpretation of the digitised image, always assuming, that is, that the problem wasn't first solved by a look at the microfiche, which are still there at NRH for consultation; and you'll get a black mark (in guid Scots "yer heid in yer hauns"

) from the search room supervisor if you ask to see an original register if you haven't first had a look at the microfiche.

(In a similar context, BTW, you're not now allowed to see the original census enumeration book, but the supervisor will have a look at it on your behalf.)

Back when these registers were microfilmed, state-of-the-art microfilm equipment could only be set up in advance for a complete register based on an assessment of the optimum set of settings for the complete register, i.e. the average quality of the originals. (To have altered the set up manually on a page by page basis would have been completely impractical.)

In other words, if there were major variations in the quality of the original entries, the outcome wouldn't be optimum for all entries in terms of the resulting set of microfiche.

Especially when the register entries involved had faded to varying degrees, this can often lead to a problem with some of the resultant digitised images. Even if there isn't such a problem, there are some hands where upstrokes or downstrokes were much less dense than other parts of letters, which can also cause a problem.

The digitised images on SP are not produced from the original registers, but from these microfiches.

Modern microfilming equipment will automatically adjust settings on a page by page basis to ensure the best possible image!

In a way this is the downside of the Scottish world leading position as regards computerisation of indexes, with these and the associated digitised images available on-line, given the state-of-the-art when the registers were microfilmed

David