Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album

[katex]

Originally Posted by blackburnlad

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?

It, actually, did cross my mind that they may have been vacant at the time.

To me, this is about learning through more knowledgeable people and am enjoying the search very much. Bet you and Retlaw are getting some pleasure out of it too....

[cashman]

Originally Posted by katex

It, actually, did cross my mind that they may have been vacant at the time.

To me, this is about learning through more knowledgeable people and am enjoying the search very much. Bet you and Retlaw are getting some pleasure out of it too....

Ged up stanley this aft kate that'll learn ya.

[blackburnlad]

Originally Posted by Retlaw

You quoted the use of the 1909 map in placing those numberss on the properties, Nu 1 had been long gone before that 1909 map was printed, the first property was Nu 3, then the last property on that block was Nu 19, still is. As for adresses in service records, thats another great source or errors, found one bloke yesterday discharged to Pickle St, Church. During WW1 there were 1000's of clerks filling in forms, men from all over the country having to make sense of regional accents. Also we have the 1918 Absent Voters lists, men with wrong service numbers, wrong addresses, even men who had been dead for over two years.
I think you've jumped in on something you have little knowledge of, showing off, and your now trying to extricate your self and save face, by creating confusion.
Retlaw

Oh I'm confused am I? You can't decide the number of the Hope & Anchor between you, anywhere from 19 - 31 by your comments. Why not just simplify it and say you think it's on Whalley Rd somewhere.

I have no confusion in my mind, the photo was late 20's - early 30's. The address of the Slaters' Arms was number 13 at that time. Where's the confusion there?

I like how you have all historical references but the census returns down as full of errors. You would be better off taking all your census's and hanging them on a nail in the loo.

I didn't quote the 1909 map, I used it to estimate which property was the Slater's Arms. I used the Barratt's directories to quote the number.

Stick to the facts Walter, don't move the goalposts because it suits your argument.

[katex]

Hate to mention this (well, not really . ), but the map you put up is dated at c.1890 by the LCC. Not that it makes any difference like.

Think I will grab me anorak and go and join Cashy at the Stanley >>>>>>>>>

[cashman]

Originally Posted by katex

Hate to mention this (well, not really . ), but the map you put up is dated at c.1890 by the LCC. Not that it makes any difference like.

Think I will grab me anorak and go and join Cashy at the Stanley >>>>>>>>>

give it a miss kate match off.

[jaysay]

Ya know if I had another lifetime I'd actually sit down and read this thread, I love he says he says arguments

[blackburnlad]

[QUOTE=katex;882829]Hate to mention this (well, not really . ), but the map you put up is dated at c.1890 by the LCC. Not that it makes any difference like.

Think I will grab me anorak and go and join Cashy at the Stanley >>>>>>>>>/QUOTE]

Wander back through a few comments katex and you'll find it was Retlaw who said it was a 1909 map. I didn't bother to check whether it was or not, I took him at his word (he's the historian after all, he told us so around page 16 just after I had mentioned the trade directories).

Don't top yourself yet Jaysay, I'm back to work on Monday and wont have enough time to be replying to Walter. But I'll be back next weekend to see who else he's offended

[blackburnlad]

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

Just adds weight to my argument katex, that the census returns aren't worth the paper they were scribbled on. I'm sure they are a great resource for tracing family history, but that's about all.

[katex]

[quote=blackburnlad;882899]

Originally Posted by katex

Hate to mention this (well, not really . ), but the map you put up is dated at c.1890 by the LCC. Not that it makes any difference like.

Think I will grab me anorak and go and join Cashy at the Stanley >>>>>>>>>/QUOTE]

Wander back through a few comments katex and you'll find it was Retlaw who said it was a 1909 map.

Don't top yourself yet Jaysay, I'm back to work on Monday and wont have enough time to be replying to Walter.

Ok .. sorry about the map, but I do believe they went on for a while before they were complete or summat ?

Yes, Jaysay ... perhaps Busman will come back soon with some more photographs to discuss to give some light relief...

These ancestry sites don't half grab your money too .. as you are never sure whether you have gone into the correct person until you get there.
I have established quite a lot about my own ancestry, so, yes, are good for that.

Love searching though .. next stop library to view Electoral Registers.
That should crack it ... well ...... we'll see. Enjoy your working week.

[blackburnlad]

[QUOTE=katex;882910]

Originally Posted by blackburnlad

Ok .. sorry about the map, but I do believe they went on for a while before they were complete or summat ?

Yes, Jaysay ... perhaps Busman will come back soon with some more photographs to discuss to give some light relief...

These ancestry sites don't half grab your money too .. as you are never sure whether you have gone into the correct person until you get there.
I have established quite a lot about my own ancestry, so, yes, are good for that.

Love searching though .. next stop library to view Electoral Registers.
That should crack it ... well ...... we'll see. Enjoy your working week.

Sorry katex, I couldn't answer your query about the maps, but I know a man who can. He will probably be back on soon

I agree, the ancestry sites can be expensive, not that I've used them much, but I remember it costing me.

Good luck with the electoral registers. Don't forget though, the pub photo was somewhere between about 1927 and 1937, so they will be the only years of any real relevance to this thread.

[Retlaw]

[quote=katex;882910]

Originally Posted by blackburnlad

Ok .. sorry about the map, but I do believe they went on for a while before they were complete or summat ?

Yes, Jaysay ... perhaps Busman will come back soon with some more photographs to discuss to give some light relief...

These ancestry sites don't half grab your money too .. as you are never sure whether you have gone into the correct person until you get there.
I have established quite a lot about my own ancestry, so, yes, are good for that.

Love searching though .. next stop library to view Electoral Registers.
That should crack it ... well ...... we'll see. Enjoy your working week.

I checked the Burgess rolls this afternoon, and going through them starting at 1900, 1910, 1914, 1920 & 1930, they all show nu 3 to 19,
19 being the one that later became know as Catlow's Fruit & Veg.
Across the top of Marques St, then 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31 and so on to the end of that block. In 1920 & 1930 there is no nu 21, that block starts at 23. The numbers are still the same today, so you need'nt worry Kate, the letters, telegrams & parcels wouldn't be flying all over the place, its all in yon blegburner's head, I think he also believes in father christmas, and if he harps on long enough, some one may come to believe him.
I suppose now he will come back, and after claiming the census's are wrong, that all the Burgess Rolls are wrong as well, only his trade directories are right.
Retlaw.

[katex]

Whoops, looks like game, set and match to Retlaw.

[steve2qec]

Makes the infamous "Spire Farm" thread look like a teddybears picnic !!!

[blackburnlad]

[QUOTE=Retlaw;882929]

Originally Posted by katex

I checked the Burgess rolls this afternoon, and going through them starting at 1900, 1910, 1914, 1920 & 1930, they all show nu 3 to 19,
19 being the one that later became know as Catlow's Fruit & Veg.
Across the top of Marques St, then 21, 23, 25, 27, 29, 31 and so on to the end of that block. In 1920 & 1930 there is no nu 21, that block starts at 23. The numbers are still the same today, so you need'nt worry Kate, the letters, telegrams & parcels wouldn't be flying all over the place, its all in yon blegburner's head, I think he also believes in father christmas, and if he harps on long enough, some one may come to believe him.
I suppose now he will come back, and after claiming the census's are wrong, that all the Burgess Rolls are wrong as well, only his trade directories are right.
Retlaw.

The Burgess Rolls on their own neither prove nor disprove anything, except for the fact that Whalley Road had those house numbers during the years you have listed. It doesn't tell us where numbers were actually situated, other than the fact they were towards the bottom/start of the road. I mean, let's face it, Whalley Rd is a long road and obviously it would have house/property numbers 1 - 31 (and beyond).

Whereas the trade directories (Barrett's) have house property numbers and actually list the streets off as you cross them. For instance the example page I put on here. You know, numbers 1 - 11 then in italics 'Marquis St' and so on and so on, right along the road until the end. I've never seen an electoral register marked out like that (unless yours in Accy differ to other towns). Usually they just have the street name, the property numbers and those of voting age at the individual properties.

Now if you could photograph the one from 1925 and put it on here for us to view and if the names at the addresses differed greatly to the pages from the 1925 Barrett's Directory listings I attached, then I would start to believe you.

My problem is though, you could very easily photograph a list from any year after 1936 and then tell us it's the 1925 one.

The Burgess rolls on their own are Inadmissible Evidence I'm afraid

But nice try !

[katex]

[quote=blackburnlad;883191]

Originally Posted by Retlaw

Now if you could photograph the one from 1925 and put it on here for us to view and if the names at the addresses differed greatly to the pages from the 1925 Barrett's Directory listings I attached, then I would start to believe you.

Agree there, Blackburnlad, and already mentioned this to Retlaw to see where an A.Westwell was registered in 1925.

Will go and verify this with camera, as neutral at the moment, but do trust Retlaw's word nevertheless.