I am doing research into the Bullock family. A question about recording place of death. In a number of cases, an individual has lived a long time in a town. At the time of death, the person is in a hospital or home in another place. Should the place of death be recorded as the person's normal residence or the town in which he/she died? What is the convention for this?
I have several instances of this in my tree. In each case I record both.
The place of death being the hospital, or other location, where the death occurred.
Also record the last place where the person lived as part of their residence history.
I have a couple of cases where someone lived in a care home for some years, then I record that as their last residence.
I would say that there is a convention as such. I would recommend that you record all the information that you have.
When I encounter a death record like the one below (which has been partially redacted from one in Ancestry.com):
NAME: BIRTH YEAR: AGE: DEATH DATE: 16 Mar 1873 DEATH PLACE: Moonta Mines RESIDENCE PLACE: Moonta Mines FATHER'S NAME: REGISTRATION PLACE: PAGE NUMBER: VOLUME NUMBER:
I record it in Ancestry.com as:
- Death event on 16 Mar 1873 at Moonta Mines, South Australia, Australia
- Residence event on 15 Mar 1873 at Moonta Mines, South Australia, Australia
If I only recorded the Death event then the only way to tell whether someone not only died there (and may have come from somewhere else; perhaps had been in hospital there for the last few weeks of his/her life) would be by reading the Description. I record the Residence event on the day before death to ensure that it gets sorted with the correct chronology.