How to record UK local government changes

[Rgemini]

I'm not sure whether to post this to s.g.britain or s.g.computing, so to
start with I'm posting to both, with follow-up set to s.g.computing.

I use Legacy to hold my family records, but I think the problem would exist
whichever product one uses. The problem is this:

I have many instances of places that have changed which UK county they
belong to during the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. So far I have
recorded them as they appear on the original document, whether census or
BMD. For example I now have entries for both "Greenwich, Kent" and
"Greenwich, London". But these are the same place. In some cases they refer
to the same physical house, at the same number and road.

It gets worse when dealing with 19th century locations like "London,
Middlesex", which could be almost anywhere in north London now.

Is there any standard approach to take with these so I don't end up getting
totally confused?

My current thoughts are to somehow combine them as, for example "Greenwich,
London (Kent until whenever)"

My brain hurts!

Rgemini
(Roy Ayres, Eltham, UK)

(Originally posted to the Legacy UG where the ever-helpful Cathy confirmed
she also has this problem and pointed out that the genealogical standard is
to record exactly as on the source document.)

[Hugh Watkins]

"Rgemini" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

I'm not sure whether to post this to s.g.britain or s.g.computing, so to
start with I'm posting to both, with follow-up set to s.g.computing.

I use Legacy to hold my family records, but I think the problem would
exist whichever product one uses. The problem is this:

I have many instances of places that have changed which UK county they
belong to during the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. So far I have
recorded them as they appear on the original document, whether census or
BMD. For example I now have entries for both "Greenwich, Kent" and
"Greenwich, London". But these are the same place. In some cases they
refer to the same physical house, at the same number and road.

It gets worse when dealing with 19th century locations like "London,
Middlesex", which could be almost anywhere in north London now.

Is there any standard approach to take with these so I don't end up
getting totally confused?

My current thoughts are to somehow combine them as, for example
"Greenwich, London (Kent until whenever)"

record the fact you have AS IS

a seperate line for each census

Hugh W

[Mike Day]

"Hugh Watkins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Rgemini" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
I'm not sure whether to post this to s.g.britain or s.g.computing, so to
start with I'm posting to both, with follow-up set to s.g.computing.

I use Legacy to hold my family records, but I think the problem would
exist whichever product one uses. The problem is this:

I have many instances of places that have changed which UK county they
belong to during the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. So far I have
recorded them as they appear on the original document, whether census or
BMD. For example I now have entries for both "Greenwich, Kent" and
"Greenwich, London". But these are the same place. In some cases they
refer to the same physical house, at the same number and road.

It gets worse when dealing with 19th century locations like "London,
Middlesex", which could be almost anywhere in north London now.

Is there any standard approach to take with these so I don't end up
getting totally confused?

My current thoughts are to somehow combine them as, for example
"Greenwich, London (Kent until whenever)"

record the fact you have AS IS

a seperate line for each census

Yes. I agree with Hugh. It is important to record the information as it was

at the time it was created.

I would add though, that in some cases an explanatory note may be needed.
For instance, my g-grandfather is recorded as living at 4 Friston Villas,
Sidney Road, Richmond, Surrey, while later he is recorded as living at 22
Sidney Road, Richmond, Surrey. These two addresses are, in fact, one and
the same place. without an explanatory note another researcher would not be
aware of this.

Additionally, I sometimes produce a composite making it clear from the
source citation that this is my own construction and cross referencing to
the 'real' data from which the composite was deduced.

Mike

[mickg]

Rgemini wrote:

I'm not sure whether to post this to s.g.britain or s.g.computing, so to
start with I'm posting to both, with follow-up set to s.g.computing.

I use Legacy to hold my family records, but I think the problem would exist
whichever product one uses. The problem is this:

I have many instances of places that have changed which UK county they
belong to during the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. So far I have
recorded them as they appear on the original document, whether census or
BMD. For example I now have entries for both "Greenwich, Kent" and
"Greenwich, London". But these are the same place. In some cases they refer
to the same physical house, at the same number and road.

It gets worse when dealing with 19th century locations like "London,
Middlesex", which could be almost anywhere in north London now.

Is there any standard approach to take with these so I don't end up getting
totally confused?

My current thoughts are to somehow combine them as, for example "Greenwich,
London (Kent until whenever)"

My brain hurts!

Rgemini
(Roy Ayres, Eltham, UK)

(Originally posted to the Legacy UG where the ever-helpful Cathy confirmed
she also has this problem and pointed out that the genealogical standard is
to record exactly as on the source document.)


Record as was on the original document.

London was never London, Middlesex though I've seen that used it was
mainly by genealogical researchers who didn't know better.

MickG

[Robert Burns]

Mick,

It is also used on the 1891 census and possibly on others as well

Rob
"mickg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Rgemini wrote:
I'm not sure whether to post this to s.g.britain or s.g.computing, so to
start with I'm posting to both, with follow-up set to s.g.computing.

I use Legacy to hold my family records, but I think the problem would
exist
whichever product one uses. The problem is this:

I have many instances of places that have changed which UK county they
belong to during the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. So far I
have
recorded them as they appear on the original document, whether census or
BMD. For example I now have entries for both "Greenwich, Kent" and
"Greenwich, London". But these are the same place. In some cases they
refer
to the same physical house, at the same number and road.

It gets worse when dealing with 19th century locations like "London,
Middlesex", which could be almost anywhere in north London now.

Is there any standard approach to take with these so I don't end up
getting
totally confused?

My current thoughts are to somehow combine them as, for example
"Greenwich,
London (Kent until whenever)"

My brain hurts!

Rgemini
(Roy Ayres, Eltham, UK)

(Originally posted to the Legacy UG where the ever-helpful Cathy
confirmed
she also has this problem and pointed out that the genealogical standard
is
to record exactly as on the source document.)


Record as was on the original document.

London was never London, Middlesex though I've seen that used it was
mainly by genealogical researchers who didn't know better.

MickG

[Hugh Watkins]

Rob
"mickg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Rgemini wrote:
I'm not sure whether to post this to s.g.britain or s.g.computing, so
to
start with I'm posting to both, with follow-up set to s.g.computing.

I use Legacy to hold my family records, but I think the problem would
exist
whichever product one uses. The problem is this:

I have many instances of places that have changed which UK county they
belong to during the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. So far I
have
recorded them as they appear on the original document, whether census
or
BMD. For example I now have entries for both "Greenwich, Kent" and
"Greenwich, London". But these are the same place. In some cases they
refer
to the same physical house, at the same number and road.

It gets worse when dealing with 19th century locations like "London,
Middlesex", which could be almost anywhere in north London now.

Is there any standard approach to take with these so I don't end up
getting
totally confused?

My current thoughts are to somehow combine them as, for example
"Greenwich,
London (Kent until whenever)"

My brain hurts!

Rgemini
(Roy Ayres, Eltham, UK)

(Originally posted to the Legacy UG where the ever-helpful Cathy
confirmed
she also has this problem and pointed out that the genealogical
standard
is
to record exactly as on the source document.)


Record as was on the original document.

London was never London, Middlesex though I've seen that used it was
mainly by genealogical researchers who didn't know better.

"Robert Burns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Mick,

It is also used on the 1891 census and possibly on others as well

http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.g ... efault.asp

Results: You ran a search on "london AND middlesex"
There are 24 research guides containing content that match your search.
There are at least 3000 results within The Catalogue.
You can refine your search by clicking the "refine search" button.
========
You ran a search on "london AND middlesex" restricted to reference(s): "RG"
There are 177 results within The Catalogue. Hits 1 to 20 are shown below
sorted by catalogue reference.

Subseries within RG 10LONDON - MIDDLESEX
Subseries within RG 11LONDON - MIDDLESEX


Subseries within RG 10LONDON - MIDDLESEX
Subsubseries within RG 10Registration District 1.KENSINGTON
RG 10/1Registration Sub-District 1A St Mary Paddington Civil Parish,
Township or Place: Paddington 1871


etc

Hugh W

[mickg]

Robert Burns wrote:

Mick,

It is also used on the 1891 census and possibly on others as well

Rob
"mickg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Rgemini wrote:

I'm not sure whether to post this to s.g.britain or s.g.computing, so to
start with I'm posting to both, with follow-up set to s.g.computing.

I use Legacy to hold my family records, but I think the problem would

exist

whichever product one uses. The problem is this:

I have many instances of places that have changed which UK county they
belong to during the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. So far I

have

recorded them as they appear on the original document, whether census or
BMD. For example I now have entries for both "Greenwich, Kent" and
"Greenwich, London". But these are the same place. In some cases they

refer

to the same physical house, at the same number and road.

It gets worse when dealing with 19th century locations like "London,
Middlesex", which could be almost anywhere in north London now.

Is there any standard approach to take with these so I don't end up

getting

totally confused?

My current thoughts are to somehow combine them as, for example

"Greenwich,

London (Kent until whenever)"

My brain hurts!

Rgemini
(Roy Ayres, Eltham, UK)

(Originally posted to the Legacy UG where the ever-helpful Cathy

confirmed

she also has this problem and pointed out that the genealogical standard

is

to record exactly as on the source document.)



Record as was on the original document.

London was never London, Middlesex though I've seen that used it was
mainly by genealogical researchers who didn't know better.

MickG



Yes I'm aware of that and as I said you will see it used. But London and

Middlesex were always distinct entities with London growing until
Middlesex no longer existed. In later years up to the present day you'll
even find Middlesex, London.

Good to be aware it happened enough to be considered when researching
but it was never actually true. Places were in reality either London or
Middlesex.

MickG

[Bob Melson]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:45:08 +0000, mickg wrote:

Robert Burns wrote:
Mick,

It is also used on the 1891 census and possibly on others as well

Rob
"mickg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Rgemini wrote:

I'm not sure whether to post this to s.g.britain or s.g.computing, so
to start with I'm posting to both, with follow-up set to s.g.computing.

I use Legacy to hold my family records, but I think the problem would

exist

whichever product one uses. The problem is this:

I have many instances of places that have changed which UK county they
belong to during the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. So far I

have

recorded them as they appear on the original document, whether census
or BMD. For example I now have entries for both "Greenwich, Kent" and
"Greenwich, London". But these are the same place. In some cases they

refer

to the same physical house, at the same number and road.

It gets worse when dealing with 19th century locations like "London,
Middlesex", which could be almost anywhere in north London now.

Is there any standard approach to take with these so I don't end up

getting

totally confused?

My current thoughts are to somehow combine them as, for example

"Greenwich,

London (Kent until whenever)"

My brain hurts!

Rgemini
(Roy Ayres, Eltham, UK)

(Originally posted to the Legacy UG where the ever-helpful Cathy

confirmed

she also has this problem and pointed out that the genealogical
standard

is

to record exactly as on the source document.)



Record as was on the original document.

London was never London, Middlesex though I've seen that used it was
mainly by genealogical researchers who didn't know better.

MickG



Yes I'm aware of that and as I said you will see it used. But London and
Middlesex were always distinct entities with London growing until
Middlesex no longer existed. In later years up to the present day you'll
even find Middlesex, London.

Good to be aware it happened enough to be considered when researching but
it was never actually true. Places were in reality either London or
Middlesex.

MickG

My inclination would be to post the information as shown in the original
document, then use the "Notes" capability to record the political changes.
Dunno if this is a "real" or acceptable solution, but it does address
your problem.

HTH,
Bob Melson


--
Robert G. Melson | Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions | ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas | Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net

[mickg]

Bob Melson wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 23:45:08 +0000, mickg wrote:


Robert Burns wrote:

Mick,

It is also used on the 1891 census and possibly on others as well

Rob
"mickg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


Rgemini wrote:


I'm not sure whether to post this to s.g.britain or s.g.computing, so
to start with I'm posting to both, with follow-up set to s.g.computing.

I use Legacy to hold my family records, but I think the problem would

exist


whichever product one uses. The problem is this:

I have many instances of places that have changed which UK county they
belong to during the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. So far I

have


recorded them as they appear on the original document, whether census
or BMD. For example I now have entries for both "Greenwich, Kent" and
"Greenwich, London". But these are the same place. In some cases they

refer


to the same physical house, at the same number and road.

It gets worse when dealing with 19th century locations like "London,
Middlesex", which could be almost anywhere in north London now.

Is there any standard approach to take with these so I don't end up

getting


totally confused?

My current thoughts are to somehow combine them as, for example

"Greenwich,


London (Kent until whenever)"

My brain hurts!

Rgemini
(Roy Ayres, Eltham, UK)

(Originally posted to the Legacy UG where the ever-helpful Cathy

confirmed


she also has this problem and pointed out that the genealogical
standard

is


to record exactly as on the source document.)




Record as was on the original document.

London was never London, Middlesex though I've seen that used it was
mainly by genealogical researchers who didn't know better.

MickG



Yes I'm aware of that and as I said you will see it used. But London and
Middlesex were always distinct entities with London growing until
Middlesex no longer existed. In later years up to the present day you'll
even find Middlesex, London.

Good to be aware it happened enough to be considered when researching but
it was never actually true. Places were in reality either London or
Middlesex.

MickG


My inclination would be to post the information as shown in the original
document, then use the "Notes" capability to record the political changes.
Dunno if this is a "real" or acceptable solution, but it does address
your problem.

HTH,
Bob Melson


Fact is it's *your* family history and *you* record it as you wish.

Nobody can lay rules on you as to how. But yes I would say a smart way
is to record whatever was on the source documents and add notes if you
think that source data requires any form of qualification.

MickG