Page 1 of 1
The smallest district recorded?
Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:35 pm
by AndrewA
Piece 1096, Book 3. Thakeham Sussex, District 1 has only 1 building with 5 occupants recorded!
Beat that!
Re: The smallest district recorded?
Posted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:10 am
by SRD
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.