How do I handle a death record that is false

The death record can only be viewed at a FamilySearch Center or Affiliate Library. That means we can't see the exact information it may contain without further research.

Early death records generally contain very little information to help identify the principal. It's certainly possible that the record belongs to a different man with the same name.

@Adrian Bruce1, @Dale Flowers I agree that there is likely some conflation of individuals going on BUT I would not be so quick to rule out the Liverpool details.

Whilst there isn't a death record for a "Robert Flowers" or "Robert B Flowers" in the GRO, there is a record for a "Robert Beatty" aged 32 which is a match (GRO Reference: 1854  S Quarter in LIVERPOOL  Volume 08B  Page 164).

The hypothesis given on the profile is that "Beatty" is the name Robert sailed under (at least some of the time? and certainly in 1854), so it would follow that is also the name his death would have been registered under were the informant a work colleague overseas.

The obit and death registration in the US were not published until October 3rd and 7th respectively. meaning a combination of time and degrees of separation may very well have blurred the details. There was, for example, a burial ground in use in Liverpool at the time called St James, which was (and is) in the vicinity of the docks, which may have been misremembered as "St Joseph's" if the person relaying the information was not familiar with the city.

Likewise, if Robert's death occurred on the 22 of June (the day before the Wyoming departed) rather than July, its entire possible the crew's manifest had already been written and simply went uncorrected. OR perhaps he was set to sail on board the Wyoming but plans changed. If he died on board the Saranac in Liverpool before the manifest was written, there would be no record of him on the returning ship's manifest. OR there were multiple Robert Beatty/Flowers and they've been conflated. Of course, it's all conjecture, but it does illustrate the point I think, that there are too many variables at this point to make a definitive ruling either way.

It's also worth noting that the death of Robert's brother, Albert, was registered in the US at the same time as Robert's, and appears on the same page (although he, Albert, died in 1852). It was also registered by someone with apparent known connections to the family. So, based on the evidence at hand, I would suggest that this is actually one of the stronger evidentiary points available, despite the inconsistencies.

I would need more information as to what exactly was recorded in the 1855 crew records referred to, to be able to comment. But I would suggest the 1860 census connection is circumstantial. It simply lists a Robert Flowers aged 38, born Pennsylvania. Working as a farm hand in Doylestown, Bucks, Pennsylvania. Whilst the details fit and it could be a match, nothing in what is recorded is unique enough to be definitive. i.e. there is no middle initial, family connections, consistent occupation, or specific place of birth.

Of course there's the possibility of mistaken identity of the deceased, but that seems unlikely given his estate was settled in September 1855, giving a full year to realise the error. I also can't see him faking his death if he continued to use the same name and move in the same circles after the fact.

I would suggest it's more likely that he did in fact die in 1854, and that the names Robert Flowers and Robert Beatty, were common enough that there was more than one individual of those monikers born in Pennsylvania contemporaneously and more than one individual of those monikers who was a sailor so those names continue to appear after the individual in question died.

I would suggest the above mentioned death record for Robert Beatty in Liverpool may hold some answers.

@RaniM and @Dale Flowers - the Robert Beatty burial is on Ancestry in their Liverpool burials. He was aged 34, buried on 25 July 1854 at Liverpool St John's church. The most significant bit is his "residence" which appears to read "Dead House, Princes Dock" which sounds like a morgue on the Docks, and presumably indicates where the body came from, rather than where he lived when alive.

Oh excellent finds @Adrian Bruce1!!

I agree that "Dead House, Princes Dock" sounds like a morgue. The alternative spelling of "Sarawak" is a good find as well. I do wonder if it might actually be a different vessel entirely, which may explain Robert not being present in manifests for the "Saranac" (a vessel by that spelling did exist at the time, whilst "Sarawak from Philadelphia" appears multiple times in British shipping news). A clue worth further exploration, I think.

The GRO certainly appears to be available via PDF or digital image, but I suppose one would need to go through the purchasing process to know for sure. It's interesting that the age in the burial record is different to the age in the civil death registration Index by two years, that suggests to me the informants may have been different for both records and the informant for the civil record may have been more familiar with Robert.

its definitely a bit of a puzzle!

@Adrian Bruce1 Thanks for that insight. I hadn't been aware it was a potential issue until you mentioned it. It's a shame they don't bother to rescan those problem pages when it's brought to their attention. I'd consider it good recording keeping practice.

The difference between a PDF and a JPEG materially is the price, both are available to order but the digital image is cheaper. JPEGs do degrade in quality over time though, so it can be worthwhile to duplicate those into a different format once you have them, if that's a concern. Some people aren't bothered, it really just comes down to personal preference.

Hi @Dale Flowers thanks for the link. I've had a look through your updated document, but I don't think it materially changes any of my initial conclusions, particularly when paired with the burial record and newspaper article that @Adrian Bruce1 uncovered.

I do think the most likely conclusion is that your Robert B Flowers died in Liverpool in 1854 under the name Robert Beatty and those other records you cite after that date belong to other individuals. I had a look at the Transcripts of Chronological List of Masters and Crews on the Pennsylvania State Archives you reference and in my opinion they don't hold enough information to conclusively all be the same person, in fact I would err to the opposite being true.

Vis:
1820 - Robert Beatty on board BRIG FORREST, age 21, 5'6", fair, dark hair born N.Y.
(Obviously not your guy, but it shows there's already at least one other of this name in the mix).

1844 - Robert Beatty on board BARQUE GLOBE, description not given, "no protection".
1844 - Robert Beatly [sic] on board BARQUE GLOBE, description not given, "no protection" listed as "Seaman".

1845 - Robert Beaty on board BARQUE COLUMBUS, age 18, 5'0", light complexion, brown hair, born PA, res Phil, listed as "Boy".
(Note the age suggests this individual would have been born about 1827 not 1822. Robert B Flowers would have been about 23 at this time. Additionally it seems unlikely that someone who was ranked Seaman would be sailing under the lesser rank of Boy the following year, so this may be a different individual again to the fellow listed in 1844).

1854 (14 March) - Robert Beatty on board SIROCCO, description not given, "no protection", added to crew at Callao.
(Note this entry is dated 7 days before the citizenship declaration, is that enough time to get to Philadelphia from Peru by sailing ship? I would have thought it took longer but I'm guessing)

1854 (23 June) - Robert Beatty on board WYOMING, age 22, 5'10", ruddy complexion, brown hair, born PA. (Note this individual is ten years younger than Robert B Flowers would have been and 10" taller than the 18 year old Robert Beaty in 1845, so either a lot of record/transcription errors have occurred across records or they're possibly three different people).

1855 - Robert Beatty on board BRIG FOSTER, age 33, 5'10", ruddy complexion, brown hair, born Bristol.
1855 - Robert Beatty on board BRIG FOSTER, age 33, 5'10", ruddy complexion, brown hair, born Bristol.
(This is the only record that exactly matches with the citizenship declaration, which raises the question, perhaps that record doesn't belong to Robert B Flowers. I also don't think age and shared state of birth is enough to prove they're the same, particularly when the death in 1854 is so well documented. Regarding the signature comparison, I agree that there are certainly enough similarities to warrant consideration. But I would also weigh it against other evidence, as it's not a particularly unique signature).

1871 - Robert Beattie on board BRIG GYPSY QUEEN, description not given.

In my option, there are jut too many variables to assume all these records belong to the same person.

Thank you @Áine.ní.Donnghaile, that means a lot coming from you.