Can you decipher cause of death?

[peterb]

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

[Darcy]

I think it says Senectus - old age.


Regards
Darcy

[JAP]

Senectus = Old Age

A Stuff Singer singed (burnt) the nap off material.

JAP

[peterb]

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

[Gadget]

I think it says Serocis - Cirrhosis - hardening, enlargement and finally shrinkage of the liver.

Gadget

[PrueM]

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

[UKgirl]

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  and I think that perhaps "Congratulations" are in order

UKgirl

[peterb]

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

[UKgirl]

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.
  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 

So, take care everyone, and take a break and stretch your legs, while you still can

UKgirl