"Ruth" <historyscape@gmail.com> wrote : > This sparked my interest as I recently reported to Ancestry that part > of Brighton appeared to be missing from its 1861 census product. This > was part of the Palace district. Now I know the reason. If you look > at the details of piece RG 9/601 on TNA's catalogue you will find a > note which states the piece is "Wanting", i.e. missing. You're not wrong - I should have looked more closely. In relation to the first part of the original question, it is perhaps worth noting that the TNA appears to be inconsistent in the way that it records missing sections. The Brighton piece is listed and noted as 'wanting' under the piece number, but there is no mention within the main details for the Brighton Registration District. To take a different missing section, the Pimlico part of St George Hanover Square RD, this was never allocated piece numbers and the only reference to its loss is under the main details for the RD. Presumably, this difference in treatment reflects the nature and timing of the loss, but it does make it more difficult to locate the necessary information. John Brown Leic., Eng

----- Original Message ----- From: "John Brown" <john.dhb@btopenworld.com> To: <SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [SoG] Lost or destroyed original census books | "Ruth" <historyscape@gmail.com> wrote : | | | > This sparked my interest as I recently reported to Ancestry that part | > of Brighton appeared to be missing from its 1861 census product. This | > was part of the Palace district. Now I know the reason. If you look | > at the details of piece RG 9/601 on TNA's catalogue you will find a | > note which states the piece is "Wanting", i.e. missing. Slight technical nick-pit. Wanting and missing are not actually the same. Wanting means that the particular piece, or item, was not there on transfer to the PRO (now TNA). Missing means that it cannot now be located at TNA - i.e. it has been mislaid or misfiled (on the over 100 miles of shelving!). In the former case, the chances of it turning up are very slim indeed. In the latter case it should, hopefully, come to light in due course. Chris Watts