Piece 1096, Book 3. Thakeham Sussex, District 1 has only 1 building with 5 occupants recorded!
Beat that!
The smallest district recorded?
Moderators: Northern Lass, admin, peterd
-
AndrewA
- Posts: 351
- Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:29 pm
- Primary Surname Interests: Heath, Dummer
- Primary Geographical Research Areas: Southern England
- Location: Portsmouth
The smallest district recorded?
Hit a Brickwall? Have you lost all trace of someone? Do not despair, simply make a note they were abducted by aliens! Don't believe in aliens? No problem, just write them off as having disapeared in a time portal
-
SRD
- Posts: 2445
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 5:34 pm
- Primary Surname Interests: Hillman
- Primary Geographical Research Areas: Sussex
- Location: Wiltshire
- Contact:
Re: The smallest district recorded?
Some of Ancestry's Sussex records are completely up the creek with the photos not corresponding to the transcriptions and the photos of the pages running across different districts. In 1861 one of the Thakeham districts is shown as only having one premises with three members of the Sayers family in it but a more careful perusal shows the schedule number as being 28, the previous 27 premises can be found amongst the previous districts photos. I had to carefully go through the schedule numbers to find the entries I was looking for and even then couldn't guarantee I'd matched schedule number with district number with district, it was a nightmare.
Currently investigating the Hillmans of Sussex.