In message <05c33620-c70a-4959-8a66-5dddf30c1c83@googlegroups.com>, melanie chesnel <mellychesnel@gmail.com> writes: >On Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 9:05:20 AM UTC+2, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] >> In my own researches, I had assumed the coming of the railways in the >> mid to late 19C would have led to much greater migration around the >> country; however, I've found the effect was much less than I'd expected. >> Still, when doing research for work colleagues (at Rochester in Kent), I >> find quite a lot of them are from local areas. [] >I think even before the railways there was quite a lot of movement over >long distances in some families and notably mine. Both my mother's and [] >This shows you can take nothing for granted about the movement of >people in the past. Each family is different and some were very mobile, >particularly mariners and artisans. Just think stone masons building >castles and cathederals v. ag labs >regards melanie chesnel Well, obviously I can only speak from my own researches - which are that, in an awful lot of cases, people didn't move much during their lifetime - even after the railways, and even in towns. Not just my own family (which is diverse - but comes from a lot of little clusters who mostly didn't move much), but research I've done for others too. Occasionally you (I) _do_ find someone who's moved a long way; but, I've generally found them the exception. YMMV (well, clearly does). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf # 10^-12 boos = 1 picoboo # 2*10^3 mockingbirds = 2 kilo mockingbird # 10^21 piccolos = 1 gigolo # 10^12 microphones = 1 megaphone # 10**9 questions = 1 gigawhat