On Sun, 9 Jun 2013 19:06:30 +0100, "Steven Gibbs" <stevenng4@sgibbs1.freeserve.co.uk> wrote: >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, > >Nowadays, I try to record only what is written in the source domement. If I >wish to create a narrative from that record, I will give what I consider to >be an adequate explanation in the narrative. (I'm not fond of letting my >commercial software make the narrative, but it's usually easier to start >with that and then hand-edit it.) > >There are still problems as quite often the source document is inadequate. >For example, many of the London parish registers on Ancestry say Middlesex >long after the parish became part of the new county of London, sometimes >because the registers had the name of the church pre-printed, other times >because the vicar was, I assume, a dinosaur. > The probate registry calendars were still describing some of such places as being in Middlesex at least into the 1930s. >In Bedford, St Pauls Parish >marriage registers refer occasionally to White Horse Street, up to 1874, >even though the road had been renamed Harpur Street sometime before (I >believe) 1841. > >Steven >