In a message dated 25/02/2004 22:36:22 GMT Standard Time, Stanmapstone@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 25/02/2004 18:46:53 GMT Standard Time, > GNicresearch@aol.com writes: > > >I therefore do not use modern names such as Tyne and  Wear, Cumbria, > Cleveland etc for any events before 1974, > > For an explanation of the 1974-myth and the problems it can cause historians > > and genealogists see > > http://www.abcounties.co.uk/newgaz/cen.htm#section3.4 > > Regards Stan Mapstone > Also, Carole wrote:                 I always write it as I see it !        There seems here to be a little confusion between two similar but different things.  When copying a document - ie making a transcript - it is, of course, essential to write precisely what is in the original, errors, unconventional spellings and all.  This is because what you are writing down is "what the document says".        However, when writing something "for today" some attention has to be given as to how things will sound today.  For instance, I would always call Ryton part of Co Durham when writing in a historical context, but in a modern-day one I would put it as part of Gateshead, and if I thought that what I was writing was likely to be read by present-day strangers I might add "which is itself part of the former Tyne and Wear".        The main thing, however, is to avoid saying, for instance, that someone lived in Tyne and Wear when one is writing about a period when that had not even been thought of, never mind existed.  "They lived in what was to become Tyne and Wear" is, of course, permissible though possibly of dubious value to the reader!                           Geoff Nicholson 57 Manor Park, Concord, WASHINGTON, Tyne & Wear NE37 2BU NBL/DUR family history research in depth by THE local expert. Record searching service: you name the records, I search them!