I've been having fun today with my sources list - thanks to the email sent in answer to Andrew by Peter Evans yesterday. Today I have found out several things I didn't know I could do in FH, and in a much quicker way than I have tried to do them before. This has led me to think again about Poor Law records and sources. As there is no absolute certainty about the pauper's residence, except perhaps in settlement examinations and bastardy recognizances, or about his settlement except in settlement certificates (and that assuming that the pauper hasn't gained a new settlement and moved on leaving the original certificate behind), and as bastardy records concern a usually unknown child (although the sex of the child is often named), and places of birth are rarely given in any documents except settlement examinations, I am simply going to create a source citation that "name" appeared in a Poor Law document, with the date. The type of document will go into the "Type" box in sources, and the text in the box provided for that. Even with a removal order there can be no assumption that a) the person was actually removed and b) that there wasn't an appeal against the removal cancelling the original order. Workhouse records are easier, particularly the death and birth registers, and I already have some of these under "death" and "birth". Anne Anne Cole, President, Lincolnshire Family History Society Duncalf(e)/Duncuff/Duncuft One-name Study GOONS member 513 http://www.one-name.org/profiles/duncalf.html Lincolnshire Post 1837 Marriage Index http://mi.lincolnshiremarriages.org.uk/ Lincolnshire Family History Society http://www.lincolnshirefhs.org.uk

<<snipped>> Even with a removal order there can be no assumption that a) the person was actually removed and b) that there wasn't an appeal against the removal cancelling the original order. <<snipped>> Sound advice Anne - my favourite case is a widow Pickstock and children in Lancashire who were removed from Wigan to Middlewich, Cheshire, in May 1764. In this instance the document is annotated to say that the family were "delivered" there. However, in October 1764, the same thing happens again, but with no confirmation of delivery. What happened, I think, is that the father (from Middlewich) had died, Wigan therefore feared the family would become chargeable, so sent them "back". I suspect the family, apart from the father, had never seen Cheshire before, hence their return - apparently after both removals, as the widow married again in Wigan in 1765. I've seen other chains of removal orders and appeals with no clue on one document about what comes next - here you're reliant on looking through or the indexing - excellent in Lancashire's case - to find what happens next. In these cases I ended up with a Removal (custom) event, with the note against the event containing whatever caveats are necessary. But in general, I've had other instances outside the Poor Law, where I've done quite a tight custom event for starters and then, as further variations come in, wished I hadn't been quite so precise, so your recommendations for thinking it through beforehand are very sensible. Adrian B