On 30 Mar 2010 at 9:22, Nivard Ovington wrote:
The age would be recorded in the GRO index on their deaths and is
easily available to the end of 2005 (age was added to the GRO index in
1866, changed to date of birth from 1969)
For example there are 1,501 deaths registered in 2000 for people born
1900 (there will be many more over 100 of course)
Interesting but not surprising is that the majority of those are
If its about a living person it should not be discussed onlist of
I sometimes wonder if the day is fast approaching when nobody will have names any
more, but in order to preserve our precious privacy and anonimity we will all have to
walk around with numbers stamped across our foreheads (or possibly some other part
of our anatomy) ! Will I soon not be allowed to know the names of our next door
neighbours, with whom we have been on very good and friendly terms for many
Slightly excessive, perhaps, but that is the way I feel about the rampant paranoia over
mentioning living people on these lists or, indeed, anywhere else. Open any
newspaper and you will find the names of dozens of people who are patently obviously
still living - and I am quite certain that the vast majority did not give their permission
their names to be published. What precisely is the difference between seeing their
names in print in a newspaper (which can also be read on the Internet) and seeing
them on a genealogy mailing list? I confess I cannot begin to understand the
obsession we have in genealogy with not mentioning names of the living..
However, to stick to the principal thread, when the 1911 census came out in January
2009 I was told by a contact at Findmypast that they estimated there were somewhere
between 9,000 and 10,000 people in it who were still alive at that time. Certainly, one
of them was my mother-in-law, who I found as a 2-month-old baby living in Coventry
with her parents. I printed the return out and gave it to her and to say she was
up" would be no exaggeration! She was literally thrilled to bits to see herself on
census as a child of two months and then to think that she is still alive today to have
seen it. Undoubtedly some of these folks will have died in the meantime, but there
must be several thousand still alive who are now aged 99, 100 and upwards. Should
we really deprive them of the pleasure of marking such an achievement?
I am quite sure my mother-in-law will be expecting to be made a fuss of when she
reaches the magic 100 in a few month's time - and she shows every sign of making it
- and we will certainly be recording the fact in the local newspaper where she lives.
She is a very tough old lady who was missed by Adolf Hitler's Luftwaffe when they set
out to get her (and her then unborn daughter, my wife) in the big raid on Coventry in
December 1940. She and her husband, my late father-in-law, kept a business running
all through the war and the post-war years of economic depression and recovery, so I
tend to doubt having her name mentioned in the local paper - or indeed on here when
the time comes - is going to make her hypersensitive!
Really, let's get a grip and a sense of proportion about it all.
Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer
Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html
"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,
and that is not being talked about."