Genealogy Chat

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

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.

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

Thanks Gwyneth and Paul, I wasn't sure if you had to be 'of age'. Sue

I have a 17-year old performing that duty in 1896, and she was a witness at a wedding 2 months later.

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

In the early 1900's would a 19 year old be able to register a death or would they have to be 21? Sue