Surrey Electoral Rolls - Genealogists' Forum

Phoenix · #1 13-12-13, 07:07

Is anyone else a tad disappointed - not that we can see them, that's great! - but that the rural ones are organised alphabetically?

Of course, it is wonderful that I can see adresses. It is fascinating that a place which made a huge impression on Mum (with good reason: it now boasts helipads, swimming pools etc) was lived in by her aunt for a mere couple of years.

But there is no way of knowing where many people lived when the address is simply "Village" or if they had lodgers also on the ER.

kiterunner · #2 13-12-13, 07:16

Phoenix, I believe people in some villages still had a postal address of just their name and the village name at that time. I know that when I was working in computing in the 1980's this was still true in some villages in Northern Ireland.

Phoenix · #3 13-12-13, 07:25

I think some of my Norfolk relations could have been reached in that way right up to the 1980s.

It is just frustrating that there is no way to pin lots of my people down. At least in 1911 I can go to the Valuation Act maps to locate most of them (together with property descriptions) but they are challenging as they dodge around.

Nell · #4 14-12-13, 09:57

My grandfather's address in 1901 and 1911 was "8 The Village, Rendcomb, Gloucestershire". I remember being disappointed when I got one of my first marriage certs (1858) which gave bride's address as "Lower Chedworth" and the groom's as "Upper Chedworth", but I suppose that's better than just "Chedworth"!

Phoenix · #5 14-12-13, 10:26

I am at least grateful that the electoral rolls stop in 1945 in Surrey. LMA allowed them to continue up to 1965. Because I can, I've been looking at them (and pondering why one of Mum's cousins chose to exercise her vote while another didn't) and find it worrying that you can pinpoint the elderly vulnerable who don't move.