Jurisdictions and Civil Divisions

[History_Hunter]

Re your example from Kent, your assumption would appear to be correct.
https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/KEN/Brenchley
Tunbridge being the registration district, Brenchley the main town, and Paddock Wood being part of the town. Use a search engine for a description of a chapelry.

Even better, scroll a little further down that page and there's a link to something I was trying to find except that I'd forgotten my password to FamilySearch.
Under 'maps', click on the 'English jurisdictions in 1851'.
Enter Brenchley, click on the parish name with the balloon beside it, and you get three tabs, the middle one of which is Jurisdictions. You can scroll down, and you can click on the various links for further details.
You might already know this but Tunbridge and Tonbridge are two different places/areas, not just one place misspelt. They are both adjacent towns and civil registration districts, with Tunbridge as a town being Tunbridge Wells.

Pam;

I tried using the noted map URL, but the map itself does not appear. I have a familysearch account. Any idea why it seems to be "broken"?

[Peter Goodey]

Any idea why it seems to be "broken"?

You'll have to ask the site management why it's broken.

What exactly are you trying to find out?

[History_Hunter]

Pam;

I was trying to work through the instructions for accessing the familysearch map that was given earlier in the thread.

By the way; I finally got a clear answer that explains why I was having so much trouble completing the RM7 templates for "Online Images" of the census. The presence of such fields as "Civil Jurisdiction" is a bit of a red herring. I'll likely rewrite the template to make it meet the intent of the EE-style. The writer of the template likely didn't understand the structure of an EE-style citation and was just trying to mimic the example in the book. (Complete with the incorrect spelling of "Bedwelty" [actually, I understand, spelled "Bedwellty".)

I contacted the author of EE and got an explanation that seems make sense after re-reading the relevant sections of the book.

The full EE citation for the online census images (p. 240 of the book) has three parts, separated by semi-colons. Before the first semi-colon, which is the part we were discussing, is a record of what we actually saw in the census page portion (that is explicitly excluding the photographers labels) of the census image and wish to cite as evidence. It really has no predefined structure, despite the templates attempt to define one. It is more or less just an ordered list of information. (Between the first and second semi-colon is where we document our source. After the second semi-colon is where we document the source of our source.)

After going over several census sheets, I've noticed that the census sheet portion of the image often does not contain enough information to define the precise location for enumeration purposes. Some of that is elsewhere in the census book, so we can't cite it. That's why I was having an issue filling in the predefined fields. Thank goodness the source of source is also documented in the overall image. But, we state that after the second semi-colon, in our source-of-the-source.

There are some items we typically hope to see in the image and to record, in order to support our contention that a specific person lived in a specific place at a specific time. Rather than enumeration info, I think one is more likely to want to document the stated name/date of the census, Country, County, Parish, Town/Village, Person(s) or Family and possibly age(s).

If I've not explained myself well enough, please let me know.