On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:44:46 +1000, "Kiwi in Aus" <Wwftw_98@Yahoo.com> wrote: > >"Steve Hayes" <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote in message >news:j6plq8ltfjn5no5spll3pkot21bibolk6i@4ax.com... >> On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 15:41:32 +1000, "Kiwi in Aus" <Wwftw_98@Yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >>>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, >> >> I try, where possible, to use the name of the place when the event took >> place, >> but it isn't always possible to determine that precisely, so I'm not >> consistent about it. > >That sounds like me, one of those things probably no right or wrong way, I >just seam to have a lot of Essex places that turn into Greater London etc > IME older records will usually be indexed in a similar manner thus inviting a failure to match if e.g. you list a 1935 event as "West Ham, Greater London" or similar. While an address might now be in Greater London, there are many records which are still with the original county's (administrative or ecclesiastical) records. Ancestry (as usual) has failed to index this way resulting in some glorious mis-indexing when trying to bowdlerise locations.