Quote:
Originally Posted by katex
What I said was that the 1911 census had the Hope and Anchor down as No. 19 (no mention of 21-23). The Hope and Anchor is now listed as 27-31. Actually, Walter was slightly wrong on the modern numbers. If you go onto Google streetview, you will see quite clearly that the main entrance 'burgundy' coloured door has the number 31 on it.
Mind you, had to laugh at the entry for No.19 in 1911 census ... had the Licensed Vitualler down as being 35 years old, his wife 29 and their daughter 52 !
They are recorded as being married for 62 years !! Work that one out .. LOL
|
Read my comment again katex. I didn't say it was you who said it was 21-23, I said Retlaw said it was those numbers. Look inside the brackets. I said between the two of you, you have it anywhere between 19 - 31. And you do, I stand by my comment.
It's not strange that your census has no mention of numbers 1 & 3. If the properties were vacant at the time of the census, they wouldn't list them. It's a collection of information with regards the people, not the properties. Well that's what I've always been led to believe. I may be wrong?
Not really about accuracy Cashman (though accuracy is important). It's more about making a point to Walter and anyone else that might read this thread, that he isn't always right, as he seems to think he is and more importantly, he shouldn't dismiss others comments, nor ridicule them on this or any other thread just because they offer a suggestion that might differ from his own.
He could have read my initial comment and answered with a polite explanation as to why he believed I was wrong. Instead he chose to belittle me and ridicule my use of trade directories (''Two directories doesn't make you an historian'' I think he said, even though I made no claims to being an historian).