The Ridings pass into history - never! It was on this day [1 April ] 1974 that The Yorkhire Ridings were no longer acknowledged by officialdom and the inhabitants of some villages awoke to find themselves in different counties, even Lancashire can you believe!!! The Yorkshire Ridings Society has spent the last 42 years ensuring the Ridings are not forgotten - Google or whatever for details - and on 1 Aug every year Yorkshire Day is celebrated throughout the County with festivities and a reading of the Declaration of Integrity of the Ridings. Every year more people, including local Councils, celebrate this and fly the flag - one of my neighbours organised a small street party for the residents of our cul de sac. The media, local and national, report Yorkshiire Day. Maybe one day The Ridings will be restored officially - lets hope so. Maps may be attractive but they are at odds with the good folk of Yorkshire [g] Regards Jean On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Peter J. Richardson via < yorksgen@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Hello Janet > > On 31 March 2016 at 11:05, Janet Peacock <JanMPeacock@hotmail.co.uk> > wrote: > > What do you mean, Peter, by 'after the Ridings disappeared'? > > If you look at any county map published after 1974 the word "Riding" > does not appear. > > Whilst we might for sentimental reasons wish to retain the labels that > existed when we were young there will come a time when there is nobody > left in Yorkshire who was born before 1974, and unless the Ridings > make a reappearance between now and then the label will pass into > history. > > > They have not disappeared. > > > > As you point out, 'South Yorkshire' is classed as a metropolitan county > &, > > to many > > people this causes frustration ---- not only from a genealogical point of > > view, but in > > modern day activities, too. As, of course, does the use of the much hated > > 'Humberside' > > which only exists for Police etc., though the Post Office still clings > to it > > 20 years after > > its abolition! > > > As local government structures become more complicated and haphazard I > am starting to wonder whether the whole concept of counties as we used > to know them will pass into history. > > Regards > Peter > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > YORKSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Hi Kathryne Events should always be within the registration district covering the location If they tried to register in another district that district should pass the information back to the correct reg district However registration districts were large, they also crossed County barriers in a lot of cases Registration districts also changed over time So using say Sculcoates East Yorkshire when all you have is a registration district is misleading IMHO If I only have the reg district I enter the place as "reg Sculcoates" (no county etc) It is then immediately obvious where the information is from If I then find the actual place of birth later on I amend that and add the place name and the source of that information I still can't understand why anyone would record someones birthplace other than how it was when it happened, just to keep things neat & tidy Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > But, thinking about it, some of these references are from the BMD > districts,haha, might they not have lived there???? Perhaps I need to check the > electoral rolls. Is someone born where they are registered? That is what I > put. But I know they were all born at home. > > Thanks again. > Kathryne --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

If York, itself, is a separate entity, it does not appear in the Chapman Code. http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/Regions/Codes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapman_code Bill -----Original Message----- From: yorksgen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:yorksgen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Nick via Sent: Thursday, 31 March 2016 8:04 PM To: yorksgen@rootsweb.com Subject: [YORKSGEN] Sculcoates Surely it's Sculcoates, East Riding of Yorkshire, or just Sculcoates ERY using the Chapman Code? I suppose "England" might be necessary for the international researchers, but "Yorkshire" is superfluous as it is implied by "Riding". Also, there's the old adage "Never ask someone if he is a Yorkshireman. If he is, he''ll tell you anyway. If he's not, why humiliate him?Nick Higton -------- Original message -------- From: yorksgen-request@rootsweb.com Date: 31/03/2016 08:01 (GMT+00:00) To: yorksgen@rootsweb.com Subject: YORKSGEN Digest, Vol 11, Issue 62 Today's Topics: 1. Wakefield Wills and Administrations (Peter Lee) 2. Re: Wakefield Wills and Administrations (Nivard Ovington) 3. Sculcoates (MomNat@aol.com) To contact the YORKSGEN list administrator, send an email to YORKSGEN-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the YORKSGEN mailing list, send an email to YORKSGEN@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to YORKSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to YORKSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Yes, I can see the sense of putting England rather than UK Victor, but I dont think it hurts to put both as there is a England in the USA and a Scotland as well. If you are an American researcher, you might automatically think the England being referred to is the one in the USA. But definitely to put UK instead of England would be confusing as well. I shall watch not to do that in future. Edie Victor wrote: Every place name should end in England, if that is where it is. UK covers other countries. By putting England. Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland gives you an idea where the place is. Putting UK alone doesn't help much. Place names followed by the county name does help but doesn't help those who are unfamiliar with the county locations. Whatever anyone decides to do they should make it the same for consistency.

Hello Janet On 31 March 2016 at 11:05, Janet Peacock <JanMPeacock@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > What do you mean, Peter, by 'after the Ridings disappeared'? If you look at any county map published after 1974 the word "Riding" does not appear. Whilst we might for sentimental reasons wish to retain the labels that existed when we were young there will come a time when there is nobody left in Yorkshire who was born before 1974, and unless the Ridings make a reappearance between now and then the label will pass into history. > They have not disappeared. > > As you point out, 'South Yorkshire' is classed as a metropolitan county &, > to many > people this causes frustration ---- not only from a genealogical point of > view, but in > modern day activities, too. As, of course, does the use of the much hated > 'Humberside' > which only exists for Police etc., though the Post Office still clings to it > 20 years after > its abolition! As local government structures become more complicated and haphazard I am starting to wonder whether the whole concept of counties as we used to know them will pass into history. Regards Peter

I am more inclined to use the name of the place according to the years it was called a certain name and not what it has become since. It can be said that the place name has changed since to such and such, but at the time of say 1850 it was called such and such. Maybe easier to write a note to explain the name had changed. Borders changed as well even if the place name hadnt at that time. I always put say Halifax, WRY, England or UK, mainly as there is a Halifax in Canada and other places. So to put in England is important. In Australia a lot of English County names and towns are used as is in America so I think UK or England is important otherwise as someone else pointed out international reseachers could be confused. For instance, when our family came to Tasmania the earlier records said they lived at Morven, Van Diemans Land in 1856 , in 1857 it became Tasmania, even though they were the same area but with a name change, I would call them what they were at the time. ! I wouldnt call it Evandale in 1856 because that is what it had become in 1857,it would have been written as Morven or Evandale, Van diemans land as that is what Tasmania was called until 1857. Consistency of how you write a place especially in a program is important in the source citation, otherwise you end up with a lot of different citations for the same place and they build up. I am told that if you use 'Create a Book' to publish your book for the family, 'Create a Book' makes you go back and correct any errors or inconsistencies. That takes time. A friend who has written three books now from Create a Book had to correct repeat records. Edie ------------------------------------------ From: gillian via <yorksgen@rootsweb.com> To: ovington.one@gmail.com; yorksgen@rootsweb.com; Subject: Re: [YORKSGEN] Sculcoates I tend to go with the record rather than the riding as many if not most of my paternal family are around York and so change area like a yoyo so as said previously it's York, Yorkshire I look at the issue as how would my children interpret my findings if they ever decide to have an interest Gillian Cattell Off to York on Sunday ?

Thank you all for your suggestions and comments. Jean, thank you for the comments and links. Victor, I think I am going to go with Sculcoates, East Yorkshire, England. It would be more accurate to include UK but I don't like it for some reason (hard cheese, love that, Nivard, but then I often enjoy your turn of phrase). England in the US? New England? This is seldom listed as a precise location. Have to look that one up if not. Most towns it seems are named for places in England, Indian names or people. Half my mother's family is from New England, from England - maybe York but then no one really knows - I found one reference, just said York no idea if it meant York itself or Yorkshire and we are talking 1630s anyway so that is another whole smoke. I originally had many references that were, Sculcoates, Yorkshire plus many other variations and I just changed the lot to Sculcoates, Kingston-upon-Hull, Yorkshire yesterday. I will change them all now. It would actually be incorrect to say Sculcoates, Kingston-upon-Hull perhaps because so far, they are all well within the 1837 to 1937 century. Before coming to the Hull "area" they were in Lincolnshire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire and West Yorkshire!! The four youngest aunts and uncles born after 1937 were born in Hull. The first seven were Sculcoates. But, thinking about it, some of these references are from the BMD districts,haha, might they not have lived there???? Perhaps I need to check the electoral rolls. Is someone born where they are registered? That is what I put. But I know they were all born at home. Thanks again. Kathryne

Thanks Nivard, I've been in touch with Wakefield Archives and biting the bullet I've sent for the wills that interest me. Now to see how long it takes! Peter

Good luck with yours I do love wills, they can tell you so much that is not available elsewhere Or very little :-( "I leave everything to my good lady wife" Hopefully yours are a lot more detailed Ladies wills, particularly spinsters are generally the most profitable I find Again, good luck with yours Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 31/03/2016 19:33, Peter Lee via wrote: > Thanks Nivard, > I've been in touch with Wakefield Archives and biting the bullet I've sent for the wills that interest me. Now to see how long it takes! > Peter --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

To confuse even more villages came & went from the Ainsty so Ulleskelf my grandfathers village has been Ainsty WR and now NR so hey ho take your choice Gillian nee Wheatley Sent from my iPhone > On 31 Mar 2016, at 19:10, D.S. Ellerton via <yorksgen@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > "York itself has never been part of any Riding. It is the centre point of > all the Ridings. More accurately it is called the Ainsty of York" > I thought it was "York AND the Ainsty." The Ainsty is to the southwest of York, so my understanding is that they are considered to be two separate entities. Is that wrong? I know the hunt was always called York and the Ainsty.Daine > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to YORKSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

"York itself has never been part of any Riding. It is the centre point of all the Ridings. More accurately it is called the Ainsty of York" I thought it was "York AND the Ainsty."  The Ainsty is to the southwest of York, so my understanding is that they are considered to be two separate entities.  Is that wrong?  I know the hunt was always called York and the Ainsty.Daine 

As I said earlier, I use the location used or found at the time of the record Frankly I record it the way *I* want it , not how others may want it If they don't like it, hard cheese ! Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 31/03/2016 14:44, Lancelot Barron via wrote: > We all have a choice to make and that is the way I do it as with a possibility of 5 names of counties/locations > for one place it means that a search on place names can become so difficult. > > Lancelot > Middlesbrough > > > Whatever anyone decides to do they should make it the same for consistency. > > Victor --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

We all have a choice to make and that is the way I do it as with a possibility of 5 names of counties/locations for one place it means that a search on place names can become so difficult. Lancelot Middlesbrough Whatever anyone decides to do they should make it the same for consistency. Victor

York itself has never been part of any Riding. It is the centre point of all the Ridings. More accurately it is called the Ainsty of York It is important to add East, West or North to the place name because there are similar place names in more than one Riding As an example there is Hessle in East Riding as well as West Riding. There is also Willerby and Scalby in East Riding as well as North Riding. I could list more. I tend to put East Yorkshire rather than East Riding of Yorkshire. It is what I have always done long before I did any family search and both have the same meaning Every place name should end in England, if that is where it is. UK covers other countries. By putting England. Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland gives you an idea where the place is. Putting UK alone doesn't help much. Place names followed by the county name does help but doesn't help those who are unfamiliar with the county locations. Whatever anyone decides to do they should make it the same for consistency. I have always been puzzled why Kingston Upon Hull is simply known as Hull whilst Kingston Upon Thames,which is in Surrey, is known as Kingston! Couldn't they have called it Thames? Victor On 31/03/2016 11:21 AM, gillian via wrote: > I tend to go with the record rather than the riding as many if not most of my paternal family are around York and so change area like a yoyo so as said previously it's York, Yorkshire > I look at the issue as how would my children interpret my findings if they ever decide to have an interest > Gillian Cattell > Off to York on Sunday ???? > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 31 Mar 2016, at 09:31, Nivard Ovington via <yorksgen@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> >> I would agree with Peter >> >> I record the place name as found in the period >> >> Some places simply didn't exist in the period of the event so why would >> I record it there >> >> I guess the addition of England or whatever country of origin, becomes >> more important if you are in another country, personally I only record >> the country if its in the original record or the person is in another >> country, such as the USA or Australia etc >> >> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) >> >>> On 31/03/2016 08:25, Peter J Richardson via wrote: >>> Hello Kathryne, >>> >>> I try to record the information that was correct at the time that the event >>> was recorded. My great great great grandfather married there in 1816 and I >>> have recorded it as being Sculcoates, Yorkshire East Riding. If I had an >>> event to record after the Ridings disappeared that would mean that >>> Sculcoates would be recorded non-uniformally. >>> >>> Another example that occurs in my family is some of the areas of southern >>> Sheffield. Back in the 1840s they were in Derbyshire, then they became part >>> of Yorkshire West Riding, then the metropolitan country of South Yorkshire. >>> I would try to use the one that was relevant to the event being recorded. >>> >>> Regards >>> Peter >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to YORKSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to YORKSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Well said Janet I stick to all the ancient boundaries. The changes are only for administrative counties. As to Humberside it has just been suggested on Facebook that the police should change that name and a campaign has started for this to happen. As to the post office they are not interested in the county name only the post code. Posting a letter in say Cottingham will get a Sheffield post mark -----Original Message----- From: "Janet Peacock via" <yorksgen@rootsweb.com> Sent: ‎31/‎03/‎2016 11:05 To: "Peter J Richardson" <pjrich.ntl@googlemail.com>; "yorksgen@rootsweb.com" <yorksgen@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [YORKSGEN] Sculcoates What do you mean, Peter, by 'after the Ridings disappeared'? They have not disappeared. As you point out, 'South Yorkshire' is classed as a metropolitan county &, to many people this causes frustration ---- not only from a genealogical point of view, but in modern day activities, too. As, of course, does the use of the much hated 'Humberside' which only exists for Police etc., though the Post Office still clings to it 20 years after its abolition! Janet -----Original Message----- From: Peter J Richardson via Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:25 AM To: yorksgen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [YORKSGEN] Sculcoates Hello Kathryne, I try to record the information that was correct at the time that the event was recorded. My great great great grandfather married there in 1816 and I have recorded it as being Sculcoates, Yorkshire East Riding. If I had an event to record after the Ridings disappeared that would mean that Sculcoates would be recorded non-uniformally. Another example that occurs in my family is some of the areas of southern Sheffield. Back in the 1840s they were in Derbyshire, then they became part of Yorkshire West Riding, then the metropolitan country of South Yorkshire. I would try to use the one that was relevant to the event being recorded. Regards Peter ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to YORKSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I tend to go with the record rather than the riding as many if not most of my paternal family are around York and so change area like a yoyo so as said previously it's York, Yorkshire I look at the issue as how would my children interpret my findings if they ever decide to have an interest Gillian Cattell Off to York on Sunday ???? Sent from my iPhone > On 31 Mar 2016, at 09:31, Nivard Ovington via <yorksgen@rootsweb.com> wrote: > > I would agree with Peter > > I record the place name as found in the period > > Some places simply didn't exist in the period of the event so why would > I record it there > > I guess the addition of England or whatever country of origin, becomes > more important if you are in another country, personally I only record > the country if its in the original record or the person is in another > country, such as the USA or Australia etc > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > >> On 31/03/2016 08:25, Peter J Richardson via wrote: >> Hello Kathryne, >> >> I try to record the information that was correct at the time that the event >> was recorded. My great great great grandfather married there in 1816 and I >> have recorded it as being Sculcoates, Yorkshire East Riding. If I had an >> event to record after the Ridings disappeared that would mean that >> Sculcoates would be recorded non-uniformally. >> >> Another example that occurs in my family is some of the areas of southern >> Sheffield. Back in the 1840s they were in Derbyshire, then they became part >> of Yorkshire West Riding, then the metropolitan country of South Yorkshire. >> I would try to use the one that was relevant to the event being recorded. >> >> Regards >> Peter > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to YORKSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

What do you mean, Peter, by 'after the Ridings disappeared'? They have not disappeared. As you point out, 'South Yorkshire' is classed as a metropolitan county &, to many people this causes frustration ---- not only from a genealogical point of view, but in modern day activities, too. As, of course, does the use of the much hated 'Humberside' which only exists for Police etc., though the Post Office still clings to it 20 years after its abolition! Janet -----Original Message----- From: Peter J Richardson via Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:25 AM To: yorksgen@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [YORKSGEN] Sculcoates Hello Kathryne, I try to record the information that was correct at the time that the event was recorded. My great great great grandfather married there in 1816 and I have recorded it as being Sculcoates, Yorkshire East Riding. If I had an event to record after the Ridings disappeared that would mean that Sculcoates would be recorded non-uniformally. Another example that occurs in my family is some of the areas of southern Sheffield. Back in the 1840s they were in Derbyshire, then they became part of Yorkshire West Riding, then the metropolitan country of South Yorkshire. I would try to use the one that was relevant to the event being recorded. Regards Peter

I always use the Geographical location for addresses and have had assurances from the Post Office that these are still valid.I was born in the East Riding of Yorkshire, and that is what I use, I refuse to change it to "Humberside"or East Yorkshire.The "original" Geographical divisions DO still exist. The "New" designations are purely for administrationpurposes. Pam To: pjrich.ntl@googlemail.com; yorksgen@rootsweb.com> Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:05:56 +0100 > Subject: Re: [YORKSGEN] Sculcoates > From: yorksgen@rootsweb.com > > What do you mean, Peter, by 'after the Ridings disappeared'? > They have not disappeared. > > As you point out, 'South Yorkshire' is classed as a metropolitan county &, > to many > people this causes frustration ---- not only from a genealogical point of > view, but in > modern day activities, too. As, of course, does the use of the much hated > 'Humberside' > which only exists for Police etc., though the Post Office still clings to it > 20 years after > its abolition! > > Janet > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter J Richardson via > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 8:25 AM > To: yorksgen@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [YORKSGEN] Sculcoates > > Hello Kathryne, > > I try to record the information that was correct at the time that the event > was recorded. My great great great grandfather married there in 1816 and I > have recorded it as being Sculcoates, Yorkshire East Riding. If I had an > event to record after the Ridings disappeared that would mean that > Sculcoates would be recorded non-uniformally. > > Another example that occurs in my family is some of the areas of southern > Sheffield. Back in the 1840s they were in Derbyshire, then they became part > of Yorkshire West Riding, then the metropolitan country of South Yorkshire. > I would try to use the one that was relevant to the event being recorded. > > Regards > Peter > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to YORKSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Surely it's Sculcoates, East Riding of Yorkshire, or just Sculcoates ERY using the Chapman Code? I suppose "England" might be necessary for the international researchers, but "Yorkshire" is superfluous as it is implied by "Riding".  Also, there's the old adage "Never ask someone if he is a Yorkshireman. If he is, he''ll tell you anyway. If he's not, why humiliate him?Nick Higton -------- Original message -------- From: yorksgen-request@rootsweb.com Date: 31/03/2016 08:01 (GMT+00:00) To: yorksgen@rootsweb.com Subject: YORKSGEN Digest, Vol 11, Issue 62 Today's Topics:    1. Wakefield Wills and Administrations (Peter Lee)    2. Re: Wakefield Wills and Administrations (Nivard Ovington)    3. Sculcoates (MomNat@aol.com) To contact the YORKSGEN list administrator, send an email to YORKSGEN-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the YORKSGEN mailing list, send an email to YORKSGEN@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to YORKSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text.

I would agree with Peter I record the place name as found in the period Some places simply didn't exist in the period of the event so why would I record it there I guess the addition of England or whatever country of origin, becomes more important if you are in another country, personally I only record the country if its in the original record or the person is in another country, such as the USA or Australia etc Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 31/03/2016 08:25, Peter J Richardson via wrote: > Hello Kathryne, > > I try to record the information that was correct at the time that the event > was recorded. My great great great grandfather married there in 1816 and I > have recorded it as being Sculcoates, Yorkshire East Riding. If I had an > event to record after the Ridings disappeared that would mean that > Sculcoates would be recorded non-uniformally. > > Another example that occurs in my family is some of the areas of southern > Sheffield. Back in the 1840s they were in Derbyshire, then they became part > of Yorkshire West Riding, then the metropolitan country of South Yorkshire. > I would try to use the one that was relevant to the event being recorded. > > Regards > Peter --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus