1871 and 1881 pieces that should be SRY but are in LND.

[geoffj-FUG]

Bev has raised this issue again.

She has the SRY images but many pieces have been designated as LND in the PARMS. She states: The 1871 the pieces that should be SRY start at RG10_592 christchurch southwark and go all the way down to RG10_740 st George Camberwell I haven't got 1881 as such but looking at the details SRY should start at RG11_515 Christchurch Southwark, and go to RG11_699 Camberwell

LND did not become a county until 1889 so the first year that there should be LND pieces is 1891.

Thus is a very old issue that has been revisited many times. The PARMS was broken up this way after discussions between Kirk and Beci. My view was the theoretical one taken by Bev, but the decision was made to align with what was happening in FC1.

I do not know the rationale for the original decision.

Geoff

[geoffj-FUG]

Bev advises: The pieces that should be SRY start at RG10_592 christchurch southwark and go all the way down to RG10_740 st George Camberwell I haven't got 1881 as such but looking at the details SRY should start at RG11_515 Christchurch Southwark, and go to RG11_699 Camberwell

[geoffj-FUG]

Now we get complicated! TNA have the 1871 pieces RG10_592 to RG10_623 in the subseries RG10 London Surrey https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/C3139631 RG10_624 to 646 also London Surrey https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/C3139663 RG10_647 to 694 also London Surrey https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/C3139686/last/C3139715 RG10_695 to 720 also London Surrey https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/C3139734 RG10_721 to 740 also London Surrey https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/C3139760 The same issue arises in 1881 - TNA have London Surrey. The 1871 and 1881 London Middlesex pieces have been treated the same way. The Coordinator for Middlesex is Ian Cameron and he has not flagged the same problem. Geoff

[geoffj-FUG]

Keep in mind that TNA shift pieces where they border London (with Hertfordshire, Essex, Middlesex, Kent and Surrey). I have not been able to work out what their criteria for those changes is, but they do it. As far as I can tell Ancestry, Findmypast and various other suppliers continue to ignore those changes also so I suspect they can’t work out why they make these changes either. They use the same structure as we do for 1871 and 1881 (See below as to London as a County).

Middlesex pieces have not changed from FreeCen1 to FreeCen2.

When we came over to FreeCen2 there was a small shift in 1871 of pieces being moved out of London into Kent (Lewisham area). This was a correct action as they should not have been in London at all for 1871. TNA correct that and so did we (the census record shows those parishes as Kent).

Otherwise my understanding from Kirk was all the pieces for 1871 – 1891 that were listed in FreeCen 1 London where transferred to FreeCen2 under the same structure. There was discussion about reorganising the pieces to match the TNA (as you have listed below). However, it was noted that the Census pages themselves refer to London as the county. Bit of history lesson - This is due to the fact that London was recognised at least 15 years before officially becoming a county as being its own regulated and governed entity that had parishes, borders and local government - like actual counties. The changes bought about in 1889 were simply to solidify and legislate what had already been the case for many, many years.

Simply - Yes the pieces are ‘technically’ ‘legally’ within the borders of Surrey or Middlesex but the corporate and government situation of the day recognised Greater London as its own area much like a county and the census was recorded in 1871 & 1881 in that vain (as London as if it was a County).

Incidentally, this is also why TNA refer to the pieces as London Surrey and London Middlesex. Because the census says London but the officially legal borders of the time were Surrey and Middlesex.

It was on that basis that the decision was to stick with the Census record ‘London’ and what we already had, rather than create more work for everyone by rearranging and shifting pieces and transcribers to their ‘official counties’. My understanding from Kirk is that was a decision of someone either on the board or at least higher than him.

This caused a storm! Quite a while after FreeCen2 went live, Bev discovered that ‘her 1871 Surrey pieces’ that you mentioned below were listed in FreeCen 2 as London and not Surrey. What Bev did not appear to understand and refused to recognise was that those pieces had not moved county. She had been looking after ‘Surrey pieces’ that were already categorised as London. She demanded that be changed. That request was denied (by someone other than Kirk) and after a lot of nastiness Kirk worked out how to give both Bev and I access to those pieces so that she could continue with them (which she continues to do unimpeded today). She did however decide she was not interested anymore in ‘her 1891 Surrey pieces’ that were still listed in London – and continue to be listed in London.

The only information I have on 1881 is that Brenda told me that no work had been started on 1881 for London, Middlesex and Surrey. I have not been able to get Bev to verify that and was told by Brenda to back off and not communicate with Bev about it. So I have just left it.

I hope this is of some sort of use to you. To be honest I would be concerned if 1871 London is split up and returned to its ‘official counties’ as there are a lot of pieces that are needing to be redone and a lot needing to be checked from 2015 onward (which I have been working through). I have little confidence that the pieces like the one I am doing will get fixed and reloaded.

Best Regards

Beki House

[geoffj-FUG]

In view of the above I will not revisit this issue. It was decided some years ago and there seems to be no real value in changing things. It is a deckchairs on the titanic issue!