Jump to content
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Aldershort Query: Which County in 1911?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm almost certain it's Hampshire.

Is this an Ancestry indexing error question by any chance? Do they claim its in Sussex or elsewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Surrey on the 1911 Ancestry & FMP census but I thought Hampshire.

 

Craig

Edited by ss002d6252
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aldershot is, and always has been as far as I am aware, part of Hampshire. 

 

However, for Registration Purposes (BMDs etc.) Aldershot was, until 1932, part of Farnham Registration District which straddled the Hampshire/Surrey border.  Farnham itself is in Surrey.

 

Steve

Edited by SteveE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes.... as I am sure everyone knows, a large proportion of the original Expeditionary Force (later BEF) was based in Aldershot in 1914. I am trying to index the units, locations and Census for 1911. Ancestry has indexed it in the 1911 Census under

 

Surrey

        > Aldershot

                        > Enumeration Page 13 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has always been Hampshire, but Ancestry have probably muddied the waters some what. Parishes in Aldershot became part of the Diocese of Guildford in 1928 and many civil parish records, including the parish registers, are held at the Surrey History Centre. It is the same for parts of Farnborough and Cove. However, many of the elder faculties regarding the parishes are held by the Hampshire Record Office.

 

As I remember some parts of the outlying parts of Aldershot appear under Farnham in the census.

 

Bootneck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the dogsbo££℃s of Ancestry indexing of the 1911 census.

They have mis indexed 1/3 of Anglesey parishes.

Those parishes were under Bangor or Caernarvon(sic) Reg districts. Therefore Ancestry deem them to be in Carrnarvonshire(sic).

They've done the dame here.

I've pointed this out many times. 

They aren't interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

A list of the 1911 enumeration districts - http://www.1911census.org.uk/1911districts.htm

 

It would appear that Ancestry are correct (!!!!!) based on the original census details.

 

I'd imagine they lumped the registration district in to the county under which most of it lay for admin purposes.


Craig

Edited by ss002d6252
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some more info. Based on various searches of the England Census 1911 using the names of a number of Barracks based in Aldershot, the following labelling has been used by Ancestry

 

Hampshire -> Farnborough -> pages 13-14

Surrey -> Frimley -> pages 11-15

Surrey -> Aldershot -> page 13

 

Some barracks appear in two different indexes and are not duplicates.

 

I don't know if the sprawling Garrison did encroach into Surrey but it seems odd to have units within the same barracks recorded in different parts of the Census. 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, SteveE said:

Aldershot is, and always has been as far as I am aware, part of Hampshire. 

 

However, for Registration Purposes (BMDs etc.) Aldershot was, until 1932, part of Farnham Registration District which straddled the Hampshire/Surrey border.  Farnham itself is in Surrey.

 

Steve

 

Steve. Thanks. I think this explains it.

 

While geographically within Hampshire the "Reg Distr" is given as Farnham on the summary pages of the Enumeration Books. Aldershot is Sub-District No. 2 of Farnham (Surrey)

 

Quite confusing. MG

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

A list of the 1911 enumeration districts - http://www.1911census.org.uk/1911districts.htm

 

It would appear that Ancestry are correct (!!!!!) based on the original census details.

 

I'd imagine they lumped the registration district in to the county under which most of it lay for admin purposes.


Craig

 

Indeed they are correct. Stranger than fiction....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two images, both of barracks in Aldershot...

 

Malplaquet Barracks, Marlborough Lines is under Hampshire ->Farnborough the enumeration page shows Farnborough as a sub district of Hartley Wintney

Salamanca Barracks, Wellington Lines is under Surrey->Aldershot, the enumeration pages shows Aldershot as a sub district of Farnham

 

So different parts of Aldershot Garrison were recorded under different Registration Districts and Sub-Districts. Edit. It seems that the Lines north of the Basingstoke Canal were classified under Hampshire and anything south of the Basingstoke Canal was classified under Surrey. 

 

Census 1911 Aldershot Hampshire.jpg

Census 1911 Aldershot Surrey.jpg

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, QGE said:

While geographically within Hampshire the "Reg Distr" is given as Farnham on the summary pages of the Enumeration Books. Aldershot is Sub-District No. 2 of Farnham (Surrey)

 

Quite confusing. MG

Yes that is correct, (as is your comment)

 

3 hours ago, ss002d6252 said:

It would appear that Ancestry are correct (!!!!!) based on the original census details.

 

Well, they're incorrect to  list them that way, because registration districts and counties are not co-terminous.

3 hours ago, ss002d6252 said:

I'd imagine they lumped the registration district in to the county under which most of it lay for admin purposes.


Craig

Correct.

 

Take this dwelling:

http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/2352/rg14_03111_0000_02?backurl=%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk%2fsearch%2fdb.aspx%3fdbid%3d2352%26path%3d&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnBrowsing#?imageId=rg14_03111_0017_03

 

It's classified as England-Surrey-Aldershot - Enumeration District 2.

The address is Victoria Road, Aldershot. Proper town centre.

That was then and is now and always was, Hampshire.

 

So the question asked has been answered- Hampshire.

Of course the reply to the question is "What do you mean by Aldershot?".

Aldershot town - Hampshire. Aldershot postal adress areas to the east generally- Surrey.

 

And then Ancestry have seemingly  lumped all Aldershot addresses of the 1911 Census as Surrey.

I've  done really vague searches, no name, no date of birth,  just "Lived in: Aldershot, Hampshire, England. (Exact)

And you get ONE result

http://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?db=1911England&gss=sfs28_ms_db&new=1&rank=1&msT=1&msrpn__ftp=Aldershot%2C Hampshire%2C England&msrpn=83966&msrpn_PInfo=8-|0|0|3257|3251|0|0|0|5266|83966|0|0|&msrpn_x=1&msrpn__ftp_x=1&MSAV=1&uidh=ekf

 

And that's only there because someone has taken the bother to correct the error on an individual record.

But there are probably thousands  (Possibly tens of thousands) of records that need correcting here in this area alone.

Now you'll know in future of this anomaly, you'll work around it.

But there are probably tens of thousands of descendants and relatives worldwide, whose research has come to a full stop at this point.

And I think that's a terrific shame.

I've posted in the past about the 1911 Census in Wales, where the Welsh language place names have been mis transcribed.

Some from Anglesey to Monmouthshire.

I've found people who,d lived their entire lives in the same Anglesey cottage.

Yet Ancestry  states they were born in Monmouthshire, 200 miles away, lived in the same house in previous censuses in Anglesey, but in 1911 were living in the same cottage in Caernarvonshire(sic).

I've given up on this one, they're not going to change the indexing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one record (a child of a soldier) shown as born in Aldershot, Hampshire, living in Aldershot Surrey which seems to challenge the BMD theory. 

 

Edit. There are dozens of these.

 

 

Aldershot Conflict 2.jpg

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. Frank Applegate b1909 is on the census return living at Alexandra Street, North Town, Aldershot, HANTS.

And I suspect many more/most of the above live in Hampshire, mis indexed by Ancestry (Ithink FMP do the same).

 

Not sure of the point you make about BMD.

Free BMD gives his DOB in December quarter 1908, as Farnham District.

It lists all the parishes of the registration district as:

FARNHAM REGISTRATION DISTRICT

  • Registration County : Surrey.
  • Created : 1.7.1837.
  • Abolished : 1.4.1934 (to become parts of Surrey South Western and Surrey North Western registration districts).
  • Sub-districts : Aldershot, Ash, Farnham, Frimley.
  • GRO volumes : IV (1837-51), 2a (1852-1934).
  • Registers currently held at : Surrey and Hampshire.

     

Table 1: List of Places in Farnham Registration District

Civil Parish

County

From

To

Comments

Aldershot

Hampshire

1837

1932

See Table 2, note (d).

Ash & Normandy

Surrey

1837

1846

See Table 2, notes (a), (b), (c) and (f).

1869

1934

Bramshott

Hampshire and Sussex

1837

1846

See Table 2, note (a).

Cove

Hampshire

1837

1846

See Table 2, note (a).

Dockenfield

Hampshire

1837

1895

Transferred from Hampshire to Surrey on 30.9.1895. See also Table 2, note (f).

Surrey

1895

1934

Farnborough

Hampshire

1837

1846

See Table 2, note (a).

Farnham

Surrey

1837

1934

See Table 2, note (f).

Farnham Rural

Surrey

1894

1933

Created 1894 out of the parishes of Farnham and Waverley. Abolished 1.4.1933 to become parts of the parishes of Tilford and Farnham.

Frensham

Surrey

1837

1934

See Table 2, note (f).

Frimley

Surrey

1837

1934

See Table 2, note (e).

Hawley with Minley

Hampshire

1837

1846

See Table 2, note (a).

Headley

Hampshire

1837

1846

See Table 2, note (a).

Hindhead & Churt

Surrey

1933

1934

Created 1.4.1933 out of the parishes of Frensham and Elstead. See also Table 2, note (f).

Kingsley

Hampshire

1837

1846

See Table 2, note (a).

Long Sutton

Hampshire

1837

1846

See Table 2, note (a).

Puttenham

Surrey

1837

1846

See Table 2, note (a).

Seal

Surrey

1837

1846

See Table 2, notes (a), (b) and (f).

1869

1934

Shottermill

Surrey

1896

1933

Created 1.10.1896 out of the parish of Frensham. Abolished 1.4.1933 to become part of the parish of Haslemere. See also Table 2, note (g).

Tilford

Surrey

1933

1934

Created 1.4.1933 out of the parishes of Farnham Rural and Elstead. See also Table 2, note (f).

Waverley

Surrey

1837

1894

Abolished 1894 to become part of the parish of Farnham Rural.

Yateley

Hampshire

1837

1846

See Table 2, note (a).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This list neatly shows how all the addresses in all the parishes in Farnham Reg Dist should be indexed.

It also illustrates the extent of the error in Ancestry and FMP's databases is. Multiply Farnham by every registration district by all the registration districts in Enland & Wales, that contain parishes form outwith the "Registration County". That  runs into hundreds of thousands/millions.

In fairness, I think the data was sold to them in this format  (from The National Archive I think).

This problem does not seem to have arisen in previous censuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

This list neatly shows how all the addresses in all the parishes in Farnham Reg Dist should be indexed.

It also illustrates the extent of the error in Ancestry and FMP's databases is. Multiply Farnham by every registration district by all the registration districts in Enland & Wales, that contain parishes form outwith the "Registration County". That  runs into hundreds of thousands/millions.

In fairness, I think the data was sold to them in this format  (from The National Archive I think).

This problem does not seem to have arisen in previous censuses.

 

Whatever the Welsh is for brilliant, I wish I knew. Doubtless full of consonants with few vowels. Thank you. 

 

1. BDM: There was a suggestion that BDM defined Aldershot as Surrey. My point, badly made, was that there is counter-evidence to this theory.

2. Millions. I doubt....but I think I get the point that the indexing of this national database is simply appalling. 

 

I don't have FMP access as my default (stress on the fault part) is Ancestry for legacy reasons. It would be interesting to see if FMP make identical 'decisions'. If so it might suggest the problem is a common source. 

 

Frankly speaking, poor transcription is less than worthless. It is misleading. MG

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, QGE said:

 

Thanks. No vowels. N srprs thr thn. MG

 

Well,  actually, 2 of the 4 letters are...;)

Edited by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Registration Districts were originally based on Poor Law Unions, as those were among the best developed local government bodies at the time civil registration was introduced, at a level intermediate between counties and parishes.  Several of these straddled county boundaries.  Another one which may cause confusion is that the Windsor registration district also included places like Egham, Surrey.  These were generally tidied up in the 1974 local government reorganisation so that registration districts were coterminous with (a group of) local government areas.

 

In your example in post 16, remember that the place of birth recorded on the census form is what was recorded by whoever filled in the schedule, who would naturally have seen Aldershot as being part of Hampshire.  If you actually look for the birth registrations they would still be under Farnham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, David_Underdown said:

Registration Districts were originally based on Poor Law Unions, as those were among the best developed local government bodies at the time civil registration was introduced, at a level intermediate between counties and parishes.  Several of these straddled county boundaries.  Another one which may cause confusion is that the Windsor registration district also included places like Egham, Surrey.  These were generally tidied up in the 1974 local government reorganisation so that registration districts were coterminous with (a group of) local government areas.

 

In your example in post 16, remember that the place of birth recorded on the census form is what was recorded by whoever filled in the schedule, who would naturally have seen Aldershot as being part of Hampshire.  If you actually look for the birth registrations they would still be under Farnham.

 David. Interesting. Thank you.

 

If I understand this correctly, Place of Birth and Place of Registration of Birth were different. In Ancestry's search engine (see post #16) it clearly states 'Place of Birth' rather than Birth Registration (or something similar) and all people born in Aldershot are shown as being born in Hampshire. When I look up Aldershot in the BDM I get the same. 

 

Registration Year: 1911

Registration Quarter: Apr-May-Jun

District: Aldershot

County: Hampshire

 

No mention of Farnham. When I click the image there are endless lists of people with only the name of the district (town). No counties.  Separately when I search for Aldershot in the Census in the place of birth, Aldershot, Hampshire is the only offering in the drop-down menu. Drilling into the candidates, on the Census forms for 1911 the instructions are to record the "County and Town or Parish".  None seem to have recorded Surrey. As we have seen there are people recorded as being born in Aldershot Hampshire but residing in Aldershot Surrey.

 

In case it is not clear: the confusion is over place of residence rather than birth.

 

Lastly this modern map seems to indicate that the Parish of Aldershot had never crossed into Surrey and had been within Hampshire from 1571. I am still confused by the fact tht parts of Aldershot north of the Canal were classed under Surrey. I must be missing something obvious. MG

 

 

Aldershot.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you David,

I was aware of the fact about Registration Districts being based on the old Poor Law Unions, but didn't wand to take the thread off on a tangent.

 

I still don't understand though  why this is not an issue in censuses before 1911.

The Eastern Anglesey parishes (N) were always part of the Bangor (Caernarvonshire, sic) Registration District.

The Eastern Anglesey parishes (S) were always part of the Caernarvon (sic) (Caernarvonshire, sic) Registration District.

The Western Anglesey parishes were always part of the Anglesey Registration District.

For all censuses, 1841-1901, Ancestry has all the parishes indexed correctly as Anglesey?

Why did Ancestry decide to index these Anglesey parishes incorrectly as Caernarvonshire?

Why are they incapable of/ uninterested in  correcting the error?

They imply that the data came over from (IIRC) NA that way.

 

For Anglesey, read Surrey, Sussex, Hants,  or any other area where Registration districts are not coterminous with the then existing county boundaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...