Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > Family History General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 30-08-23, 15:27
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,677
Default

On the assumption that there was a different registrar for each subdistrict, I have a death in the same quarter with the same registrar.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 30-08-23, 20:59
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,288
Default

So, was that the subdistrict that covers the WH or the one that covers the village (or are they both in the same one?)
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 30-08-23, 21:23
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,677
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 30-08-23, 21:47
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,288
Default

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?
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 22-11-23, 15:58
kiterunner's Avatar
kiterunner kiterunner is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 25,244
Default

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
__________________
KiteRunner

Family History News updated 3rd Feb
Westminster Electoral Registers 1902-1970 new on Ancestry
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 22-11-23, 19:32
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,677
Default

Thanks, Kite, for a definitive answer which makes perfect sense.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:04.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.