On 30/11/2015 20:16, Adrian Bruce via wrote: > ..... What the situation was in history, I don't know. > I don't know how often the lists were updated in years gone by, but they were certainly complicated before the days of universal franchise. For example: For 1894-5 I have found my great-great grandfather on two electoral registers. He owned his property and lived in it, so both the registers relate to the same address. One is a register of 'Ownership Electors' for the purposes of Parliamentary and Parochial elections. His qualification for this was ownership of a freehold house. (His abode was recorded as the same place, but there were some others on the list whose abode was elsewhere. Those people presumably had two votes, one in each place.) The other list is of 'Occupation Electors (other than Lodgers)' for the purposes of County and Parochial elections but not Parliamentary elections. This list includes not only my great-great grandfather but also his wife, so evidently women could vote in local elections then, even though they couldn't vote in Parliamentary elections. But because my gr.gr. grandfather was already on the first list which included Parochial electors his name has a cross beside it in the second list to indicate 'Not entitled to vote as a Parochial Elector in respect of this entry' to stop him voting twice in parochial elections. The question arises, when is a lodger not a lodger? It seems lodgers couldn't vote at all, but we all know from censuses that a household often included members of the extended family. Sometimes they were recorded in censuses as lodgers, sometimes as 'great uncle' or 'brother-in-law'..... Lorna