On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 22:35:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In message <51b480c1$0$15966$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Lesley Robertson ><l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> writes: >>"Kiwi in Aus" wrote in message >>news:KOOdnXnM3a69RjfMnZ2dnVY3go-dnZ2d@giganews.com... >> >>How do others deal with this, you might start off with a place that is >>in >>Essex at time of birth, but by the time a person dies same place is now >>called Greater London, or South eastern Essex or what ever do you stay >>with >>same place name or change with the passing time, I guess change with >>time is >>more correct, >> >As others have clarified, it depends what the purpose of recording the >place is. > >I tend to agree with those who say record the placename as it was at the >event in question; however, it's a good point that records will be now >archived (or whatever) under the current name. > That is far from certain. IME records usually remain catalogued as they were when received thus avoiding potential "translation" errors. >(I also like to make >lists of the places associated with my people, and to have all the >people/events for a particular location listed together, which doesn't >happen if I use the original names/counties.) > >The placenames themselves change as well as the counties: where it comes >to punctuation (e. g. whether it's one word, hyphenated, or two words), >then this can be so well under a century, with actual spelling >variations not much before that, until eventually you get back to a >point where there is no such thing as a "correct" form. > >Abroad, it's much more varied: Aix-la-Chapelle is now Aachen, for >example, and there's the (almost certainly apocryphal) tale of the >Russian grandfather, Polish father, and German son (I think I've got >those the right way round), all of whom were born in the same house. (It >is certainly true that there are places which Poland has passed through >on its travels.)

In message <54u9r8tcmfa71vc94pmbdc8mhhrk36ppfc@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson <ce11son@yahoo.ca> writes: >On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 22:35:12 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" ><G6JPG@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote: [] >>I tend to agree with those who say record the placename as it was at the >>event in question; however, it's a good point that records will be now >>archived (or whatever) under the current name. >> >That is far from certain. IME records usually remain catalogued as >they were when received thus avoiding potential "translation" errors. [] Sorry, I was paraphrasing in shorthand what others had said, and lost precision while doing so. I meant, the records will be _held_ by the authority with the modern name, since the one with the old name will no longer exist. When you've actually got to the point where the records are on a shelf (or microfilm) in front of you, they will indeed likely be under the old name, since anything else involves the spending of money to do the re-cataloguing/indexing. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If you believe in telekinesis, raise my right hand