Recording Reference Numbers 1911

[History_Hunter]

Hi Pam;

First off, you are not thick at all. Remember, I've not grasped things right away either.

Second, I think I found the answer to my question by poking around the National Archives website using the Discovery search engine.

It used to be absolutely necessary to explicitly state the Registration District, Sub-District, and Enumeration District, in order to properly cite a census record. Given The RG number and Piece number, this is apparently no longer required. You still need the Folio number, Page number and Schedule number though in order to fully specify an group on a census sheet.

The discussion was about the 1911 census, but I've found that this seems to be true for all the ones I've seen from 1841 onward. I suppose the best way to illustrate this is to go to the Discovery search portal on the National Archives site and type in some RG and Piece number like "RG13/760". It will respond with a document that gives the Registration District, Sub-District, and Enumeration District, in the synopsis. This means that there is an equivalence of one with the other. (I should note that not all textual names have district numbers associated with them. In the 1901 census onward I didn't see district numbers noted).

All said and done, I still like to follow the Evidence Explained style and put the district (RD, SD and ED) names in the first part of the citation. I tend to know roughly were a named place is, but I don't carry a cross-reference to the RG and Piece numbers in my head.

Regards;
Gary

[Pam Downes]

Hi Gary,

I'm with you now.

Couldn't make sense of it before because I'm one of those people who very rarely use The National Archives site. I have used the section you're referring to but it was a long while ago.
Personally, whatever else you use in the source citation, if you are going to enter the folio and page numbers I would strongly advise you to use the code year and piece number as well, simply because most people use that. e.g. RG11/1234 folio 56 page 78.
If you wrote just "Tunbridge, Brenchley, Paddock Wood, folio 56 page 78", I suspect ninety-nine people out of a hundred wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about. Even if you included the words registration district, sub district, and enumeration district after the place names. And writing RD, SD and ED would be guaranteed to make them lose the plot.

The most important thing is that you are consistent in how you enter information in a family history program, so don't start entering a load of information and then change your mind halfway through. That's what causes problems if you have to change to another program at some time.
https://www.
fhug.org.uk/wiki/wiki/doku.php?id=fhugdownloads:contents:gedcom_standard _release_5.5
If you click on the first link in the download section, the last paragraph on page five makes interesting reading.

Pam

[History_Hunter]

Pam;

The EE format calls for the textual version in the first part of the citation and the numeric approach in the final part. I know it sounds like duplication, but each part has its purpose. So, in short one uses both approaches at once. This is why I had to try to find out the names for the districts, even though I had the RG and Piece numbers.

It ends up looking something like this:

Footnote: 1901 Census of England, Kent, Tonbridge, Brenchley, p. 10, Household of Frederick William Wells; database with images, The National Archives (TNA), 1901 Census Online (www.census.pro.gov.uk : downloaded 2 April 2003); citing The National Archives, RG13, piece 760, folio 75, page 10, schedule 71.