|
#22
30-08-23, 19:59
|
||||
|
||||
So, was that the subdistrict that covers the WH or the one that covers the village (or are they both in the same one?)
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 
|
|
#23
30-08-23, 20:23
|
||||
|
||||
|
The workhouse would be North Walsham - which I can see from the census. The village - Edgefield - would be Holt.
The Registrar, John Banks, appears to have been a surgeon in Holt.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
|
|
#24
30-08-23, 20:47
|
||||
|
||||
|
Oooh, might a surgeon be the only sort of person who might cover more than one subdistrict? Or was that not allowed?! Can you now be sure this birth was not in the WH?
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
|
#25
22-11-23, 14:58
|
||||
|
||||
|
There is an interesting Q & A entry in the December issue of "Family Tree" magazine about an 1837 death cert which doesn't give the place of death, and the answer includes the following:
The schedules attached to the 1836 Act... omitted one crucial... pice of information, namely, the place where the event in question took place. It didn't take the newly-appointed registrars long to spot the problem, and on 3 July 1837 ... Thomas Lister, the Registrar General, issued an Order for inserting in the Register the Place of Birth or Death. Thousands of registers had already been printed and distributed to the local registrars and Lister wasn't about to spend vast amounts of money in produring replacements. Instead he ordered that "every Registrar of Births and Deaths shall... inquire the place of the Birth or Death and shall enter... after the date, the name of the Parish or Place in which the child was born... or... in which the deceased person died." As with all new systems, it took a while for everything to get up to speed
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
