Hi there,
I was about to send the following as a PM, (to our OP of course) and I have decided to post here instead, and canvas other views.
Sorry for the long post, as usual, my poor wordsmith skills are on display.
Yes, I agree with Judith, entirely possible either way. I am not at all concerned about Harry v Henry. To me, those two names are entirely inter-changeable. I have several elderly NSW rellies, still alive and alert, born pre 1920. Harry is definitely used by them to refer to another NSW rellie who I know from official records is formally recorded as Henry.
NSW BDM death certs are in three sections. (much more informative than UK certs, and NSW certs include the equivalent of the burial order, not just the death registration).... There’s the section the informant provides with info about the deceased
; there’s the section the medico certifies re the cause/s of the death
; and there’s the section the funeral director provides re the disposal of the deceased’s remains
. The lodgement of the paperwork is by the funeral director, who asks the questions of the informant and the funeral director must obtain at least a pro temp document from the medico before moving the body to the funeral director's mortuary. The Medico can be informally asked to review the info about their patient, particularly their own records re next of kin contacts.
Consequently,
The NSW BDM does NOT then go through any search to validate the information the informant provides re the deceased’s personal details. (So in general terms the NSW BDM re death certs does not re-check for the names of the deceased’s parents, or the birth details of the deceased, or the marriage/s or children of the deceased; and of course similarly NSW BDM does not re-check informant’s details on birth registrations or on marriage registrations, afterall, on deaths there’s the independent certification from the medico and the funeral director; on births there’s the independence of the midwife/doctor and on marriages there’s the independence of the celebrant ).
So in respect of death certs, there’s always that warning in respect of the family history info on them …. These are only as reliable as the informant’s own knowledge, which if given by a family member is information given at a time of grief.
As far as I know, there's no jurisdiction anywhere in Australia or throughout the former British Empire's spheres of influence where the civil BDM Registrars actually validate the info. So that's a 'technicality' which results in my use of the expression :
Official Records.
May I please suggest that Ros’ offer to attend the NSW SRO and access the Probate Packet for Nora Ewing is a very sensible offer. NSW Probate Packets usually hold a wealth of information.
It does depend on what the NSW Supreme Court has determined to Archive, and these more recent packets that are now at NSW SRO can sometimes have been culled prior to Archiving. But as there is mention of Nora Ewing as being ‘femme sole’ and I think that Ros would likely order both Packets (Colin Russell E’s and Nora E’s), and use her own best judgement to decide on the spot if after accessing Nora’s that she may need to then access Colin’s to learn more about Nora’s birth or former names. (It can take NSW SRO up to an hour to find each packet so it is likely Ros would request both, and access Nora's first, and Colin's only if she was not finding info re Nora's former name/s.
If Nora were my ancestor, I would wait until the Probate Packet details are available before deciding if I needed to order any NSW BDM official transcriptions.
On the other hand, it is many a long year since I did any research into NSW Deed Poll records, and it is likely that NSW Privacy Laws/regulations/practices may have imposed stricter controls over access to the resources at the Lands Office. After all, it was ummmmm during the last but one decade of the last millennium when I was looking up several Deed Poll records, and it was not ever a ‘user friendly’ environment for fh buffs.
Cheers, JM Love these Santa Smilies
