Parishes in London - Naming -COMPLETED

[sugarfizzle]

Can anyone tell me the 'perceived' correct way of naming parishes in what is now London?

E.g. St Pancras

I have it as 'St Pancras, London, Middlesex', but have been told that this is incorrect.
I have difficulties in calling it just London, as the families were shown as living in Middlesex in census etc.  I have difficulty in calling it just Middlesex, as it is clearly in London!

What does anyone else think?

One option would be to go back through every London place name in my tree, find out when my ancestors lived there, and rename it accordingly, as per boundary changes at that date.
Apart from being rather laborious, this could find them born in one county, married or died in another county.

I also have St Saviour Southwark in London, but have been told it has never been in London, should be in Surrey

Is there an 'accepted' way of naming places?
I don't want to modernise my place names completely.

Margaret

 

[meles]

I use the name current at the time. So I have them living in St Pancras, Middx, in the 1800s, and St Pancras, London, in the 20th century.

meles

[Mean_genie]

London is a bit of a nightmare, so you are right to be confused. London was originally just the City, ie the 'Square Mile', but much of the area we now regard as London was commonly called that, although it was technically still in Middlesex or Surrey. When th London County Council was set up in the late 19th Century it included these areas, including St Pancras and Southwark.

I agree with Meles that you should use the term that applied at the time, if you know what that was.

Mean_genie

[sugarfizzle]

Thank you both for that.

I guess it's 'go through all  London names' day coming up soon.

 

Margaret

[coombs]

Hi

I think before the LCC was set up in 1889, London included the whole conurbation, not just the Square Mile city. I think it was simply London in Middlesex. It is like Liverpool was all in Lancashire once, well it is the same as London in Middlesex. A few of my rellies gave their birthplaces as "London, Middlesex" in the censuses.

If you look at old maps of the whole of London, it says "London" and even though it was technically in Middlesex and Surrey, London existed as a city in its own right eg Islington in London, in Middlesex.

It is confusing but I like to see the whole of London pre 1889 as London.

If the Square Mile was just considered proper London before 1889, then my ancestors born in Soho, Spitalfields and Southwark ( which are 3 central London parishes) werent proper Londoners but technically Middlesexians.

Ben

[Mean_genie]

Strictly speaking they were (except the ones in Southwark, which was in Surrey , which flies in the face of common sense, because if you could ask your ancestors, they would say they were Londoners, and I would agree with them. Interestingly, the earlier indexes of the Principal Probate Registry show many addresses as Middlesex, when almost every other source treats them as London. The predecessor of the LCC was the Metropolitan Board of Works, founded in 1855, and the Metropolitan Police is even older, but official bodies with London in their title are fewer and later than you might think.

I think the main thing is to be aware that it is complicated, and not worry about the finer points unless you are particularly interested in them (they fascinate me!). It matters when you are trying to find particular records, and you need to know that they might be classified as London, Middlesex, Surrey or whatever, depending on the place, the time and the type of record.

But to go back to Margaret's original question that started this thread, I think the important thing is clarity, and if you describe St Pancras as London when it should be Middlesex, and vice versa, the sky isn't going to fall in, because it is still the same place, and won't be confused with anywhere else. I would definitely avoid London, Middlesex though because it's unnecessary, and can be innaccurate too, because the City of London has never actually been part of Middlesex. Oh dear, here we go again...

I'm glad I have no London ancestry!

Mean_genie

[behindthefrogs]

Strictly with the creation of the London Boroughs in 1965 Middlesex ceased to exist and is now totally historic, although many institutions still recognisee it in their names.  Today we regard everything inside the M25 motorway as being London although it does actually define the boundary of the London Boroughs.

Those who live there are totally confused and so it is not surprising that people on the other side of the world are totally confused.

My solutin is to totally ignore Middlesex where ever possible and just refer to places by their original local names.

David

[Mean_genie]

Those who live there are totally confused and so it is not surprising that people on the other side of the world are totally confused.

My thoughts exactly, David! I have given a talk a couple of times to American genealogists that I called 'What is Britain?',  just covering the basics, really, and so much of it was news to most of them (and these were fairly smart people), that I thought I'd better not even start on the London thing, because that would blow their minds completely

Mean_genie

[Sylviaann]

If you look here you will get some explanantion http://homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/LND/parishes.html

I would put whatever it says on the records but remember if someone says they were born in London it usually means the City of London.  Otherwise they usually give the area of birth.  I.e St Pancras, Middlesex

Sylviaann