findmypast blog

Our expert Stephen Rigden answers your questions:

After receiving a copy of my great-grandmother’s death certificate I thought it would be an easy thing to find her burial place so that I can visit from Australia next year. However, I have come up against a problem I have no idea how to tackle - I am unfamiliar with the areas around Bournemouth and with the changes to Hampshire and Dorset boundaries so do not know where to begin.

She died in Winton, Hampshire in 1903 from the effects of TB at aged 32 - her name was Ellen Dean (nee Boyt), wife of Charles. I have made enquiries with libraries but there is no record of her burial in the Bournemouth area and I am at a loss to know where to try - surely there must be a register which would record all burials for the County? Any advice would be gratefully received.’ Kris

Steve says:”Unfortunately, no! There are no such things as countywide burial registers in England and Wales.

Registration of deaths occurs locally at district register offices, with records then being collated centrally into a nationwide index. It is true that in civil registration there is an ongoing move towards unitary authorities sited at county level: for example, Kent County Council has a single countywide Registration Services portal. However, this does not apply to burials and cremations.

Unlike deaths, burials have never been regarded by the state as a vital event requiring systematic registration of date and place. Therefore, once a death has been registered, and assuming certain regulations are followed, burial can take place in a cemetery (or other approved location) of one’s choice.

Back in 1903, therefore, your late great grandmother’s death was registered in Christchurch registration district, which covered both Winton and Bournemouth. This is the only guide to place of burial that you have: most burials take place close to the locality of residence and death where these are the same. However, it is not hard to imagine situations where these general guidelines are broken. For example, if a person died far from their usual place of abode (for instance, while on holiday, or travelling), they may have been buried not near the place of death but back in their home district. Similarly, it is not unusual for a person who left their home town to be buried back there, especially if all other family remained in that location. Of course, neither of these scenarios may apply in your case, but do check on the death certificate for any addresses given for the deceased and/or the informant.

If it does seem that your great grandmother both lived and died in the Christchurch registration district area, you find yourself in a position shared by many genealogists: you know where an ancestor died but you will have to search speculatively to try to identify the place of burial. It was precisely to help out researchers in your predicament that the Federation of Family History Societies embarked upon its ongoing National Burial Index (NBI) project. A version of the NBI is online, containing 13 million entries, at Find My Past and can be found at http://www.findmypast.co.uk/parish-records-collection-search-start.action?redef=0&event=D. Currently, however, there are only limited records for Hampshire and, unfortunately, none of relevance to you.

This leaves you with only one option: to identify all the municipal and church burial grounds in the area active in 1903 and to eliminate them one by one, working out from the centre to more distant locations. As you are based in Australia and do not benefit from local knowledge, I suggest that your best step would be to contact the relevant family history society, in this instance Hampshire Genealogical Society for advice. Their contact page http://www.hgs-online.org.uk/contacts.htm includes email addresses for local organisers. They may also be able to recommend a local expert willing to undertake enquiries upon your behalf; such searches may be necessary at the County Record Office and could take in funeral notices in local newspapers for the two weeks after death, as well as burial registers.

Finally, as a word of caution, it is worth noting that if and when you successfully identify the place of burial, it is possible that you will find no surviving headstone in situ – one may not have been raised in the first place, or it may have become weathered and damaged over time. In this regard, those local authorities most mindful of health and safety regulations often lay down headstones which they deem to be dangerous.”

We hope this is useful to your research. If you would like to pose a question for Steve, please register or opt to receive newsletters in My Account.

Our expert Stephen Rigden answers your questions:

‘Is it possible for a person to appear in more than one census return? In other words, does a census recorder check that all the people named on a census are actually present in the house?

My problem is that I have just recently obtained a copy of a marriage certificate for Norton Dryden Hutchinson showing that he married Maria Cook aged 20 in Southwark in 1870, and her father was Edward Cook, a stationer. Fine, there is a Maria Jane Cook born in 1850, father Edward who in the 1861 census is shown to be a stationer. I cannot find any other Maria Cook with father Edward who is a stationer. The trouble is that the 1871 census has a Maria Cook living with Norton Hutchinson but also a Maria Cook living with her father Edward the stationer.

The situation is not helped by Norton Hutchinson claiming to be a widower in 1881, but I cannot find any death of Maria Hutchinson, nor any 1881 census for father Edward and his wife.’ Mike

Steve says:”Yes! Many family historians come across the situation during their research. As alluded to in your question, each census is a snapshot in time intended to record not who was customarily resident in a given property, but who was actually resident overnight on census night. However, this objective will not have been entirely achieved in any census.

There are many reasons for this. The first is simply that people are not very good at filling in forms. If you are familiar with the 1911 census for England and Wales, you will have seen for the first time the household schedules completed by householders themselves (these were destroyed for the earlier censuses). And you will almost certainly have seen mistakes in filling out the form – for example, the so-called fertility information entered against the man and not the woman, or Nationality completed by English and Welsh natives even though it clearly says that this is to be filled in only by persons born overseas. I have also seen several 1911 census returns where the householder has dutifully but erroneously entered the names and details of all their deceased children: usually, struck out in angry red ink by a Census Office clerk.

So we can expect householders to have made many errors of other types on the household schedules for earlier census years from 1841 to 1901 and for many of these to have been copied across by enumerators into the census returns we see today.

Secondly, the form may have been completed a day or two before the actual census night and then a person usually resident turns out to be away temporarily on census night and is recorded elsewhere as well.

In short, I believe there are reasonable grounds for you to accept that both 1871 census returns refer to the same Maria Cook. The fact that she is recorded under her maiden name Cook rather than her married name Hutchinson in the parental home is not unprecedented and may simply be householder or enumerator error. However, before proceeding further, I would strongly recommend that you conduct further searches and obtain supporting documents, especially the 1850 birth certificate of Maria (to check the name of her mother). Bear in mind that the surname Cook is of course common, London is a populous city, and the occupation of stationer may be expressed in other ways, or may change over time (for instance, between 1871 and 1881), so you do need to proceed with caution so as not to accidentally attach an incorrect but coincidentally similar-looking branch to your family tree.

Finally, although it is premature to leap to any conclusions, it would not have been unheard of for a man to claim to be widowed, and to re-marry, after separation from his first wife. In the mid- and late 19th century, divorce was an expensive and intimidating process and there are many known instances of men, and women, dispensing with the formality of divorce and re-marrying bigamously.”

We hope this is useful to your research. If you would like to pose a question for Steve, please register or opt to receive newsletters in My Account.

This month sees an inpressive update to the already extensive range of parish records on offer. We’ve just added an incredible 30,000 baptisms and almost 27,000 burials for the following Middlesex parishes:

We’ve also increased the amount of records on offer for Halifax St John. The number of baptism records has grown from 16,715 to 72,295 and the number of burial records from 11,176 to 54,210. These new records provide greater coverage for the Halifax District.

We’ve just added over 50,000 new baptisms for Stepney and Spitalfields. The records are broken down by church making them easier for you to pinpoint your ancestors. We’ve added almost 20,000 records for Spitalfields and over 30,000 for Stepney with the breakdown by church as follows:

Stepney Churches
St Dunstan 1835 - 1848   -  11,967 new records
St George in the East 1861-1877  -  15,848 new records

Spitalfields
Christ Church 1729-1795  -  19,481 - new records

We’ve also added the London probate indexes for names A-F, and a complete dataset for Kent. Records that we have include:

• Over 15,000 records added for London for the years 1750 - 1858
• 6,300 records for West Kent for the years 1750 - 1858
• 128,000 records for East Kent for the years 1831 - 1841

You can find these currently listed within Parish Burials.