AIL PROTECTED]>
To: legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com
Sent: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 4:47 am
Subject: RE: [LegacyUG] English Civil Parishes [was Burial Location Entry]
ike,
You are correct in thinking that I hardly ever use the Geo Location Database
ainly because having travelled extensively in the B
ronald ferguson wrote
There is a potential problem which you may hit when the 1911 English
census is published in that the use of for Registration District could
be confused with Rural District eg. Charlesworth, Chapel-en-le-Frith
Rural District, Derbyshire.
All the more reason why I should
> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:50:51 +
> To: LegacyUserGroup@LegacyFamilyTree.com
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] English Civil Parishes [was Burial Location Entry]
>
> Mike Fry wrote
>>I think you might need separate versions of the long locations
Mike Fry wrote
I think you might need separate versions of the long locations for the
same physical place being used in different contexts. For example, the
registration district for certificate references, the ecclesiastical
parish for baptism details, the civil or parliamentary district for
egacyUserGroup@legacyfamilytree.com
> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] English Civil Parishes [was Burial Location Entry]
>
> ronald ferguson wrote:
>> Jenny,
>>
>> I have not found a really satisfactory way of including
>> Civil Parishes in the address until the 1901 census. They
>&g
ronald ferguson wrote:
Jenny,
I have not found a really satisfactory way of including
Civil Parishes in the address until the 1901 census. They
only became properly established in 1894 when they became
something similar to the places which we recognise today.
From the mid 1850's geographical
Jenny,
I have not found a really satisfactory way of including Civil Parishes in the
address until the 1901 census. They only became properly established in 1894
when they became something similar to the places which we recognise today.
>From the mid 1850's geographical areas which had previou
7 matches
Mail list logo
