Genealogy Chat

contain as much info on them as the Scottish and Irish ones? Very frustrating!

Either....... because the English/Welsh systems were introduced earlier and to a lot of opposition, so they didn't like to ask too many questions! or....... because they knew that someone called Paul Osborne would one day be doing his (English/Welsh) family history??! Merry

I don't understand why if we are a UNITED Kingdom, Scottish laws are so different. Having introduced civil reg in England/Wales in 1837, I would have thought that when they started in Scotland it would be an ideal time to have a standardised system. But on the other hand we live in a modern, computerised world where anyone can be given a national insurance card, so what would I know about systems?!

And all the Scottish ones are online in once centralised place - makes doing things from a distance a lot easier!!

I have an Australian death cert. that is a mine of information. It has all the children together with ages, wife;s maiden name, age at marriage & where the marriage took place, the deceased's parents names, together with father's occupation, mother's maiden name. I suppose they are only good when the person giving the information is fully aware of the deceased person's circumstances, but very useful nevertheless.

I found this on Wikipedia <<Scots law (or Scottish law) is the law of Scotland. Scots law is a unique system with ancient roots and has a basis in Roman law, combining features of both uncodified Civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis and common law with medieval sources. Thus Scotland has a pluralistic legal system, comparable to that of Quebec, Louisiana and South Africa. Since the Acts of Union, in 1707, it shares a legislature with the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland and England and Wales each retained fundamentally different legal systems, but the Union brought further English influence on Scots law. In recent years Scots law has also been affected by European law under the Treaty of Rome, and laws can now be passed by the Scottish Parliament within its areas of legislative competence. The difference of basis between Scots and English law does not have much obvious effect on day to day life, but while some differences are very minor such as arbiters (in Scotland) being called arbitrators in England, significant variation shows in some circumstances, an example being house buying where Scots practice makes the English problem of gazumping a rarity in Scotland. Another example would be the ability for Scottish judges and juries to return a verdict of 'not proven' in criminal cases. Lawburrows, a summary civil action before a Sheriff to prevent a threat of violence, is another example. Scottish juries are composed of 15 members.>> and (which applies, with application of Precedent, in England & Wales)... <<Common law As from 1189, the date from which lawyers can remember what the law has been, English law has been described as a common law rather than a civil law system (i.e. there has been no major codification of the law, and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive). In the early centuries, the justices and judges were responsible for adapting the Writ system to meet everyday needs, applying a mixture of precedent and common sense to build up a body of internally consistent law, e.g. the Law Merchant began in the Pie-Powder Courts (a corruption of the French 'pieds-poudrés' or 'dusty feet', meaning ad hoc marketplace courts). As Parliament developed in strength, and subject to the doctrine of separation of powers, legislation gradually overtook judicial law making so that, today, judges are only able to innovate in certain very narrowly defined areas. Time before 1189 was defined in 1276 as being time immemorial.>> Christine

the time immemorial definition is rather interesting!

Yes, I rather like that one! Christine

On line bmd information for England and Wales will come.... eventually. It is in progress at the moment. It would have already been available round about now but the viewable information, at least on the modern certificates, would have been so reduced as to render them useless for family history: eg no addresses or causes of death on death certificates. A few dedicated family historians fought very hard to reach a more acceptable compromise, with the result that the indexes in future will hold more information, eg age at death right back to 1837. Missing information is deeply frustrating (one of my ancestors' baptisms adds the information 'but it was born'. But it was born what? Five years ago? In a different county? Two headed? I would love to know and never shall) but there is nothing we can do about it. All we can do is ensure that present records are both informative and preserved for posterity.