RootsChat.Com
Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Topic started by: peterb on Thursday 18 May 06 09:09 BST (UK)
-
Here is a section of a death cert. The left column is Occupation, the right Cause of death. Could someone tell me what the cause of death is, and what it means?
Thanks PeterB
-
I think it says Senectus - old age.
Regards
Darcy
-
Senectus = Old Age
A Stuff Singer singed (burnt) the nap off material.
JAP
-
Thanks to you both.
This was from the deat cert. of my 3xgreat-grandfather who died in 1846.
I will say that you might feel short changed if being 63 yo was regarded as being old enough to qualify for cause of death to be "old age"
PeterB
-
I think it says Serocis - Cirrhosis - hardening, enlargement and finally shrinkage of the liver.
Gadget
-
I think it says Serocis - Cirrhosis - hardening, enlargement and finally shrinkage of the liver.
Gadget
...but if you look at the "r" in "Certified", it doesn't match what you are saying might be an "r" in Serocis. The third letter of the word looks like the "n" in "Singer", and then there is a tall letter third from the end that doesn't fit with Serocis.
I think it's Senectus - I suppose 63 might have been considered old 'back in the day' :-\
Prue
-
Hello PeterB,
I agree with Darcy and PrueM, it definitely says "Senectus"
As for "old age", I found this:
Average age of death in 1842:
Manchester Leeds Liverpool Rutland
Gentlemen and Professional People 38 44 35 52
Tradesmen 20 27 26 41
Labourers 17 19 15 39
So actually, your great-great-great grandfather lived to a GREAT old age ;D and I think that perhaps "Congratulations" are in order ;)
UKgirl
-
Senectus is seems to be.
As for the "average" age of death, this is an example of the misunderstanding of statistics. These numbers are skewed by the high child mortality rate. they represent the age at which 50% of a population is still alive. It tells you little about what is actually occuring in a population.
As an example, if 50% of the population dies in its first year and everyone else lives to 80, then the average would be 40. Meaningless!
Thank you all for your help,
PeterB
-
These numbers are skewed by the high child mortality rate. PeterB
Except that that's the whole point!
The living conditions in cities, especially Manchester and Liverpool were so very grim that there was an enormously high child mortality rate and therefore anyone who survived beyond childhood did rather well, don't you think? (Perhaps that alone is worthy of "Congratulations" ;) )
My own gt. gt. grandmother died of Typhoid Fever in Manchester at the age of 49. Fairly typical, I would think.
As for the other end of the scale, the number of those who survived until their 80's could never balance out for all those childhood deaths and deaths of young adults. We all know that it is not a simple symmetrical curve, by any means.
It tells you little about what is actually occuring in a population. PeterB
It is true that context is essential.
So, whereas at first glance your comment would appear to be accurate, the numbers I offered are not meaningless at all when taken into consideration within the context of the squalid sanitary conditions etc. of England in the 1840's.
Eye-opening reading, which is humbling in its detail, is provided by:
1). Friederich Engels: Industrial Manchester, 1844
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1844engels.html
and
2). from the East London Observer 1866: Bethnal Green Fever Haunts Again:
http://mernick.co.uk/thhol/bgfeverhaunts.html
In fact the following site has a tremendous amount of moving newspaper and journal articles describing the simply appalling conditions that millions of people were living in.
http://mernick.co.uk/thhol/titles.html
It is truly humbling to step back and view our ancestors' lives within the context of what they had to endure and cope with. I don't know about the background of your own family, but as Prue suggested, probably the age of 63 was no mean achievement for most of the population, and it would be the doctors who were left with the task of filling in all those death certificates who would have been the most aware of that fact.
:o :o :o And even more worrying, some of us now might not even make it to the ripe old age of 63 if we spend much more time sitting in front of the computer increasing our chances of developing deep vein thrombosis :o :o :o
So, take care everyone, and take a break and stretch your legs, while you still can :P
UKgirl
-
peterb, I agree with you from my own experience of UK death certs (obviously not exhaustive!) since the start of Statutory Registration (1855 in Scotland, Sep 1837 in England) that old age ('Old Age' or 'Senectus' or 'Senile Decay' etc) for a 63 year-old would probably have been unusual - perhaps he suffered from what we would call early onset Alzheimer's? Or perhaps 'old age' was just a convenient excuse because the doctor didn't really know the cause! I don't mind seeing old age as a cause of death (as I have) for my Gggfather (died 1876 aged 78), or my Ggggaunt (died 1897 aged 86), or another cert I have (died 1869 aged 97) but I fear I'd be a bit suspicious if the cause of death for a 60-ish person were listed as old age. Though the following is admittedly anecdotal evidence, all the UK death certs I have of people in their 60s give quite specific causes of death e.g. tumours, apoplexy, chronic bronchitis, etc. And UKgirl, my experience would not support your comment that PeterB's "great-great-great grandfather lived to a GREAT old age". It would be interesting to see genealogical actuarial analyses based on known facts of life expectancies at birth, during childhood, in young adulthood, and then once middle age had been reached.
JAP
-
And UKgirl, my experience would not support your comment that PeterB's "great-great-great grandfather lived to a GREAT old age". JAP
Sorry, 8) my comment was meant to be a little ironical to soften the blow that his gt. gt. gt. grandfather had died prematurely. We are all sad to see that our ancestors suffered an untimely death. I was trying to console him, a little. And in comparison to a baby who died at birth, 63 is a GREAT age.
I too can swank of a gt. gt. gt. gt. grandfather who died in 1867 at the age of 92 (not a city dweller!), but I didn't really think that that would do much to cheer him up.
Oh well, I was just trying to help, and put things into perspective.
UKgirl
-
Ukgirl, I really don't need the "blow" softening. Nor do I think that he "died prematurely" I am not sad, it was 160 years ago. I don't need to be consoled, or patronised, for that matter.
I do, however, think that a death at 63 might have a definable cause other than a vague "old age". Poor sanitation, poor nutrition, poor health care, etc may have caused people to die young but "old age" never did.
My original point, I think, was that 63 was fairly young to be dying of "old age" rather than some readily diagnosable condition.
PeterB
-
Hello PeterB,
I don't need to be consoled, or patronised, for that matter. PeterB
"Patronised" ??? ..............Certainly not intended :) Not by any means :) :)
I am sure that many of us shed a little tear in our hearts, if not actually physically, when we read a death certificate of one of our forbears, and imagine their hardships, however long ago they died.
Or, at least that's what I have thought. But, perhaps it's just me being overly sentimental. Obviously you feel differently.
Anyway, I am sorry that you took offense where absolutely none was intended. As I said, I was just trying to put things into perspective with a bit of historical context.
Wishing you the best of luck with the rest of your future research,
Cheerio :),
UKgirl
-
Hi Peter, ;D
I have two death certificates with cause of death as "senile decay" and in both cases the age is under 70 years.
I have another one which has cause of death as "Not Known, Not Certified".
I can only imagine that my great grandmother reported her mother had died and she didn't know why - and was issued with the certificate anyway. A bit different fron today.
UKgirl: I cry over every death certificate that I recieve no matter how long ago the person died. :'(
Regards
Darcy
-
:)Hi Peter,
I have just read everyone's messages and I have to say that I think that UK Girl has a point. On one side of my family many were farmers in Lincolnshire during that period and a number of them lived to 'ripe old ages', but the other side were miners in Derbyshire, where people had a much harder life, living in terrible conditions, and therefore if they reached their sixties, doctors would have thought they had done well under the circumstances and would have considered them old, whereas a doctor living in an area where life wasn't as hard would have a different view on what age he considered old.
Regards,
Jane
-
I agree with Jane that UKgirl has a point and most of my research agrees with the statistics.
And after looking at those brilliant websites UKgirl gave the links to,I'm surprised anybody reached the age of 63,especially in Manchester!
Peter,you said that "Poor nutrition,poor sanitaion,poor health care etc may have caused people to die young but "old age" never did."
Those conditions meant that 63 was old.
UKgirl:I also feel sad every time I recieve a death cert,or look up a burial,no matter how long ago it was,I think most people do. :'(
-
UK Girl
You sound a very kind natured person UK Girl
Happy hunting
Louisa Maud
-
Hello Louisa Maud,
A little time has passed now, but in accordance with your own posted topic: "little word goes a long way"
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,153551.0.html
I definitely should not fail to say "thank you" in public for your generous words ;)
You sound a very kind natured person UK Girl
Louisa Maud
Actually, I am no more or less kind natured than anyone else :P
But seriously though, I would like to point out that your above comment is equally true for ALL the 8 people who used their own time and kindness to reply to the post of PeterB.
And it is also clearly true for the hundreds of others who volunteer to offer their help and comments all over Rootschat every day.
Happy hunting to you too,
UKgirl :)