Guest Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 I always believed Aldershot was in Hampshire. It is now, but does anyone know if it was in another county in 1911? MG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 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 More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 (edited) Surrey on the 1911 Ancestry & FMP census but I thought Hampshire. Craig Edited 14 November , 2016 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 Don't see how it could be Sussex, Surrey just perhaps, but AFAIK it's always been in Hampshire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 The 19th C maps show it in Hampshire (just) - http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/maps/;jsessionid=F7469EEFA8A0650915B0B285B7A1482D?layer=europe&xMin=3222769.39238&yMin=2738422.87225&xMax=3252769.39238&yMax=2768422.87225 Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveE Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 (edited) 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 14 November , 2016 by SteveE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 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 More sharing options...
bootneck Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 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 More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 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 More sharing options...
ss002d6252 Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 (edited) 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 14 November , 2016 by ss002d6252 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 (edited) 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 14 November , 2016 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 (edited) 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 14 November , 2016 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 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 More sharing options...
Guest Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 (edited) 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. Edited 14 November , 2016 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 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 More sharing options...
Guest Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 (edited) 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. Edited 14 November , 2016 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 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 More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 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 More sharing options...
Guest Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 (edited) 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 14 November , 2016 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 Yes I believe the problem is common source. Cheers. Gwych... By the way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 14 November , 2016 Share Posted 14 November , 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said: Gwych... By the way... Thanks. No vowels. N srprs thr thn. MG Edited 14 November , 2016 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 15 November , 2016 Share Posted 15 November , 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, QGE said: Thanks. No vowels. N srprs thr thn. MG Well, actually, 2 of the 4 letters are... Edited 15 November , 2016 by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David_Underdown Posted 16 November , 2016 Share Posted 16 November , 2016 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 More sharing options...
Guest Posted 16 November , 2016 Share Posted 16 November , 2016 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dai Bach y Sowldiwr Posted 16 November , 2016 Share Posted 16 November , 2016 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now