Narrowing criteria when ordering Death Cert

[Ken_R]

from the GRO.

This request leads on from other members posting helpful information in relation to obtaining Birth Certs, hence the question.

I'm trying to narrow down the Death for a William Reeves, who probably died in Birmingham prior to 1851. I can find his wife.

1851- HO107, 2058, 510, 7
1841- HO107, Piece 1141, Book 4, Folio 10, Page 12, but not him.

Looking at Deaths, there are 7 possibles, Aston + Birmingham, 1846 +/- 5. The one 1848 seems most likely.

I know from other information that he was Silver Smith.

My question is, if I applied for the 1848 Certificate could/would I be allowed, to stipulate,

"Only supply if Occupation Silver Smith/Silversmith or of a similar nature
OR
Informant is Mary Reeves
OR
Address is either [then quoting the road names as they appear in the Census records]"

Would they stand for that or would the GRO tell me to FRO?

[Kerrywood]

For ordering a death certificate without a GRO ref ...

These are the mandatory fields:
Year death was registered *
Surname of deceased *
Forenames of deceased *
Date of death (dd/mm/yyyy) *
(If you do not know the exact date enter 01/01/xxxx, we will search the specified year and one either side)
Place of death or last known address *

These are the optional fields:
Age at death in years (for infants less than 1 year please state 0)
Occupation of deceased
Marital status (if female)

[Ken_R]

Thanks for that. The only bit that I couldn't 'work' into it would be the informant.

[Kerrywood]

It's advisable to be very careful with checking-points and give minimum information, otherwise you risk excluding what might be the right certificate.

If giving the occupation, I would just put Smith.

If giving an age, allow a margin (e.g. between 40 and 45).

I would never advise giving a census address, unless the death was very close to the census (e.g. same quarter of the year). He might well have moved since the previous census. In any case, people don't always die at home.

However, someone else may come along with different advice ...

[jac65]

Hi

It is possible that he died before 1841, as the youngest child was born c1834 I would look for her baptism to see if there is any reference to him being deceased then look for burials at the same church

Andy

[Peter Goodey]

It is possible that he died before 1841

Wise advice. If he didn't feature in the 1841 but his wife did, it's not unreasonable to assume that he was dead. They were living in the parish of St George and this would seem to be a good burial register to search first.

[Ken_R]

Thanks all and I note the point about address moves.

It is possible that he died before 1841, as the youngest child was born c1834
Andy

The youngest child was born 1848 and I have a copy of his Birth Certificate. Birmingham.
Born:- 22 Jul 1848 Attwood Place, Great King Street, Birmingham
Clifford (Reeves)
Father:- Thomas Reeves
Mother:- Mary Ann Reeves formerly Luckcock (variants include Luccock/Luckock/Luccock, etc)
R or P of Father:- Silver Plater
Informant:- X The mark of Mary Ann Reeves, Mother, Attwood Place, Great King Street, Birmingham.

Where Thomas comes from I've no idea because that name doesn't feature in the family. As the Mother was unable to sign her own name, it seems reasonable to assume that it was entered through a misunderstanding. Perhaps the forename of a family friend who made the journey with her?

The name Clifford Reeves is a real gem to follow. He died Dec 1879 when, as a volunteer fireman, he fell from an Aplliance. There were even about 6 newspaper items following the incident and the raising of funds for his family.

I also have the Marr Cert for Clifford. 25 Dec 1869, All Saints, Birmingham.
Residence:- Great King Street.
Father:- William Reeves
R or P of Father:- Silver Smith

The Reeves/Luccock marriage is on FS for 1825, again on 25 Dec. What a way to spend Xmas.

Looking at the Website for the Birmingham Records Office,
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/cs/Sate...endermode=live

they seem to have a more flexible approach to the searching and issuing of Certificates than the GRO and, with the staff being local, would have a better 'feel' for any pertinent locations.

I think I might email Mr Yates and enquire as to the best (cheapest) route to obtaining the information.

Thanks all.

[Kerrywood]

The 1851 census causes me a bit of concern. There is a huge age gap between the youngest daughter Ann (aged 17) and Clifford (aged 2).
HO107/2058 folio 510 page 7.

As William REEVES is not present in either 1841 or 1851, it seems he had either left the family or died.

The youngest child was born 1848 and I have a copy of his Birth Certificate. Birmingham.
Born:- 22 Jul 1848 Attwood Place, Great King Street, Birmingham
Clifford (Reeves)
Father:- Thomas Reeves
Mother:- Mary Ann Reeves formerly Luckcock (variants include Luccock/Luckock/Luccock, etc)
R or P of Father:- Silver Plater
Informant:- X The mark of Mary Ann Reeves, Mother, Attwood Place, Great King Street, Birmingham.

Where Thomas comes from I've no idea because that name doesn't feature in the family.

Have you considered whether Clifford may perhaps have had a different father (who may or may not have been called Thomas)?

Just something to think about, perhaps?

[Ken_R]

There is a huge age gap between the youngest daughter Ann (aged 17) and Clifford (aged 2).
HO107/2058 folio 510 page 7.

As William REEVES is not present in either 1841 or 1851, it seems he had either left the family or died.

Have you considered whether Clifford may perhaps have had a different father (who may or may not have been called Thomas)?

Just something to think about, perhaps?

That's exactly what has been troubling me. And my sister, who has now passed on, during her some 10 years of research into the matter - however, she wasn't as comfortable as I regarding online searching and forums.

If that were the case then I would have expected Thomas to have been present in 1851 (and later). Granted, there is Death for Thomas Reeves in 1850 - looks like a double entry, but if that were the case, why would Clifford, on Marriage, specify the Father as William, unless he'd never been told about it? But as his sister, Emma, was a witness to the Marriage, it seems unlikely. In those days, people weren't comfortable with lying to the Clergy.

As an aside, when transcribing a particular register, I found a margin entry to the effect that the couple had returned to the Church to disclose that they had lied about their ages at the original ceremony. And when was the record corrected? Can't now remember exactly, but it was something in the region of 60 years after the event. The 'guilt' of what they had done must have remained for all those years.

And then looking at the R or P of the father. On the marriage of Clifford, Silver Smith, on the birth of Clifford, Silver Plater.

As from where William Reeves originated, nobody knows, hence why I need to establish an Age at Death, in the hope, a faint hope, that it might lead somewhere.

[Kerrywood]

If that were the case then I would have expected Thomas to have been present in 1851 (and later). Granted, there is Death for Thomas Reeves in 1850

What I'm suggesting is that 'Thomas REEVES' may never have existed as such. The father's name on the birth certificate may be a fabrication, possibly a conflation of two other names, for respectability's sake? For what it's worth, I can't see a Thomas REEVES in Birmingham St Georges in 1841 or 1851.

why would Clifford, on Marriage, specify the Father as William, unless he'd never been told about it? But as his sister, Emma, was a witness to the Marriage, it seems unlikely.

As you say, he might not have been told about it. He might always have assumed his father was William, the same as his siblings'.

Or he might have been advised by older siblings to state that William was his father, again for respectability's sake. I have seen several cases of that, where siblings have apparently agreed a 'story' as regards their father's name for the purposes of the marriage register.

In those days, people weren't comfortable with lying to the Clergy.

That isn't my experience at all. I don't know whether they were uncomfortable about it, but they certainly did it, in droves -- especially in large cities where they could easily marry away from their home parish and have some anonymity.

Given the unusual first name of Clifford REEVES, you might want to consider whether someone with the surname CLIFFORD might be a potential father? Are there any CLIFFORD candidates in the St George's area in 1851?

Not that you'd be able to prove anything, of course. It's just an idea.