The trials of research!
 

I have just been refreshing my memory about the family of my 3xgt. grandparents, Henry Hugh and Mary Daniels nee Mitchelhill. In my tree software I have found this note about Mary that I made a long time ago:

"Baptism recorded with surname "HILL" daughter of Robert Mitchel Hill and Janet Whitrough.Her date of birth is recorded but not the date of her baptism. Were they the same?

1861 census: There is no sign of Mary living with Henry Hugh who is recorded as "Hugh" only. He is shown as being a separate household within 33 Jane Street (page 39 of the return) which is also occupied by the family of John Fennis a 39 yr old lighterman, his wife Sarah and their 6 children. HHD is shown as "head" of his own household with no relationship to Fennis. There is a single line drawn between the last Fennis child and HHD denoting a separate household. A double line is drawn after HHD and before the entry for 32 Jane Street, denoting another address. Not even sure if these numbers are correct. The return begins with Jane Street numbers ascending in correct sequence until it gets to number 36 when it jumps back to 34 and begins a descending sequence repeating addresses already covered but with different people living in them. At number 21 (page 33 of the return) are HENRY HUGHES aged 55 born Stepney and his wife MARY aged 52 born Rotherhithe. Mary's age and birthplace fit Henry Hugh Daniels. Did the enumerator make a complete mess of his forms so made up the finished return as best he could? Jane Street occupies pages 26 to 50 of the return and records 594 people. It begins at number 1 and the highest house number is 36 but many are repeated, some more than once. SEE 1871 NOTES BELOW

1871 census: HHD and Mary living at 38 Jane Street along with 3 other families. This time the return is properly laid out beginning with number 2 on page 3, progressing sequentially through the even numbers to number 72 and beginning again with the odds from 1 to 71.Jane Street ends on page 28. There were 387 people living on the street in 1871. HHD and Mary appear on page 9 but, for some unknown reason, are recorded again (with correct address) on page 52, cross referenced to page 9."

So ..... to anyone trying to find ancestors who were baptised in Kirkcudbright around 1802 or who lived on Jane Street, St George in the East, Middlesex in 1861, good luck! I never have found poor old Mary on that census by the way!

Looking at the 1861 street directory, it seems that Jane Street did have numbers duplicated on opposite sides of the street:

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageview...cklabel=Return

On the east side there is no 12, Isaac Chivers, and on the west side, no 12, the "Green Man" occupied by William Bailey.

Then by 1871, it looks as though the houses have been renumbered:

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/imageview...cklabel=Return

Odd numbers on the east side, even numbers on the west side, and the "Green Man" is now number 24.

Also, it is pretty common for Scottish baptism records to show only date of birth and not date of baptism.

That's interesting Kite. What an odd and confusing thing to do with a street: imagine if it were still the same today! I wonder how that came about? Maybe I owe that long-gone enumerator an apology! It still doesn't help me find out where Mary was or why her husband was recorded as Hugh when in absolutely every other record for him thoughout his life (and there are quite a few) he is always named in full as Henry Hugh.

I think it was quite common for street numbering to work like that in those days.

I went for a walk round Rotherhithe once and was told that in the Victorian period there were (from memory!) six number ones High Street. This is often down to terraces, new houses being inserted etc, etc. I think the Post Office revolted, and in the mid 1870s there was a lot of rationalisation, with renumbering, name changes for roads and even towns. Poor Cranley lost out to Crawley and became henceforth Cranleigh.

A work colleague asked me to pick her up one day. She told me to pick her up at No. 33 Belmore Road, near the school and not no. 33 on the other side of the shops. So errors are still made today.

House numbering is tricky. Some streets go in number order, others have evens on one side and odds on the other. Lots of streets don't have a number 13. Some London addresses to be posh say they are in neighbouring streets. Harrods for example isn't in Knightsbridge but the Brompton Road.

Lots of terraces have a specific name, which is not the name of the road they are in. I was puzzled by my gt grandparents' address till I discovered that Ingram Place was the same as 13 Hornsey Road.

I lived at 2 Bay Villas, which was on a main road. Trying to convince people I didn't mean 2 Main Road was a nightmare, even though the post codes were different.

I now live at 5 HC which is on T Road. There's also a 5 T Road opposite and I have lost count of the number of parcels, pizzas and recently fibre optic installation I have had pressed upon me. The fibre optic man was particularly suspicious and even though I pointed out the house he wanted, I saw him going to our manager's office to check I wasn't doolally.

OC