On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 10:39:09 +0100
"elizabeth howard" <elizgh(a)btinternet.com> wrote:
Hi, it sounds to me a bit odd to have the
informant as the Coroner
As Adrian has said, if there was an inquest, the informant should
*always* be the Coroner. This is since the rules regarding death
registrations were tightened.
In the early days (prior 1875) of civil registration, anybody could be
the informant, and no cause of death certificate (from a doctor) was
required. Then you got some quite quaint causes cited, such as
"Exhaustion", "Natural causes" and "Visitation from God".
because people had no idea what the real cause was. After 1875 a doctor
was required to certify cause of death and, if circumstances required
it, have the Coroner notified so that an inquest could be carried out.
/ ) "The blindingly obvious is
/ _)rad never immediately apparent"
Success defined by acquisition stinks
Money is Not Our God - Killing Joke