Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Age restriction
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
SueinKent | Report | 5 Sep 2006 15:46 |
In the early 1900's would a 19 year old be able to register a death or would they have to be 21? Sue |
|||
|
Gwyn in Kent | Report | 5 Sep 2006 15:53 |
As far as I know, as long as you could understand what was required, and could deemed to be 'a responsible person' then there was no age limit. Gwyn |
|||
|
Paul Barton, Special Agent | Report | 5 Sep 2006 15:55 |
I have a 17-year old performing that duty in 1896, and she was a witness at a wedding 2 months later. |
|||
|
SueinKent | Report | 5 Sep 2006 15:57 |
Thanks Gwyneth and Paul, I wasn't sure if you had to be 'of age'. Sue |
|||
|
Victoria | Report | 5 Sep 2006 15:57 |
Yes Sue, I think it is entirely likely that a 19 year old would be able to register a death. No one cared much about age in those days, no one had to produce a birth certificate to be married and as long as witnesses were old enough to know what was happening, no one cared about their ages either. What would have been important was that he was [probably] a witness, or at least close by at the time of the death. Victoria |
|||
|
Andrew | Report | 5 Sep 2006 16:07 |
The original legislation simply requires that 'the Occupant' where the death occurred is the person who has to inform the registrar. Quite what that means, I have no idea! The same legislation also requires that the informant states his or her address, which implies that they needn't be living where the death occurs, which seems a bit contradictory. From memory, witnesses to a marriage were only required to be 'credible'. I seem to recall reading newsgroup discussions that had examples of relatively young children meeting this criterion, maybe around the age of nine or younger still. The age of an informant of a death is presumably pretty irrelevant, anyway, since a suspicious or unexplained death would see the coroner getting involved. |
|||
|
SueinKent | Report | 5 Sep 2006 16:13 |
Thanks Victoria and Andrew. I suppose at the end of the day the informant could always lie about their age, as many seem to be none too honest where census returns are involved and indeed marriage. Sue |