|
|
We no longer use activation emails. Please allow 24h after sign up and your account should work |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
1926 Electoral Register
I've made a start on this document from forum member 'Leslie'.
Slow going as ever, here's the start, just about 2,000 more names to add. [might be enough here to answer your query Janwhin?] http://www.fusilier.co.uk/amble_nort...oral_roll.html |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
I should add it will take weeks rather than days to finish it. I'm fed up with real life getting in the way of my local history.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
You're a star, Coquet, it has answered my query.Grandparents and uncle esconced in Amble.....opposite Bob Aicheson
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The 1926 Register is interesting as it shows women being eligible to vote. From what I can gather, in 1918 women aged over 30 and property owners were entitled to vote for the first time, but it was not until 1928 that all women were eligible to vote on the same footing as men.
From looking at the Amble register, it seems that married women were eligible because their husbands were occupiers of property but there also seems to be some single women eligible too......property owners in their own right? |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Yes I think property owners
bottom right hand column here, and on to the next page. Still aged 30 though. http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/30579/pages/3312 I noticed this too: question asking if women are over 21 or 30 (Question 7): http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/31352/pages/6358 What was the point? Did women property owners become eligible to vote at 21 in 1919? (of course they would be few and far between anyway I imagine) |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Actually not sure about that now, it's referring just to 'Own Occupation' and not 'Property Owning'
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
"(3) that the annual value of the qualifying
premises is not less than five pounds ;" wonder what that is about? Is that Rateable Value? |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
phew. that is a bit mind numbing.
it starts here: http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/30579/pages/3307 Our absent voter military males are definitely voting at 19. I think the point was raised before the act that they were old enough to die for their country at 19, but not old enough to vote - so it was reduce from 21 to 19. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Janwhin; your mission is a 6000 word essay on the Representation of the People Act 1918, and subsequent amendments up to 1928.
ok I'll let you off on this occasion. 1926 was the year of the General Strike. Probably hard times immediately ahead for many in our list of Amblers. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Done a bit more on the 'register', now up to 679. Just 1,649 more to go!
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Nice of you to share your thought processes, Coquet And even better that you've let me off the mission, should I have chosen to accept it
I'll throw away the 3000 words I've already done then? |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In this Register it's recorded as Derwent House. |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
I think I found the explanation. The Amble Parish/Township boundary heads south in the fields west of Radcliffe, but it then dog-legs east to just clip the south west corner of Radcliffe village, probably taking in a building - that building is possibly the post office on the Radcliffe map?
Never knew that. Radcliffe was in both townships, Hauxley and Amble. Last edited by Coquet; 23-06-2013 at 12:52 PM. Reason: spellings and add map |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
I wonder why it's not shown as a shop on the 1926 register?
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Blue = Amble Township
White and yellow = Hauxley Green = Togston the boundaries were marked on this map - I just noticed them! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Boundaries.
It looks like the area that was Radcliffe welfare was in fact actually in Amble, as was that bit of the road from Craiggs garage to the end of Leslie Row.
In the days of Amble Urban District Council, Radcliffe actually came under Alnwick Rural District Council , strange isn't it. I wonder who drew up the boundary lines and why some of these decisions were made. |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
I've often wondered about the boundaries. I wouldn't be surprised if some are medieval in origin. There's sure to be some interesting stories in antiquity as to why they are like they are.
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Nice progress on the register, Coquet. It's a valuable supplement to the 1911 census. I see that Central Avenue is up and running, do we know when that was built?
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We had a photo dated 1932 here, and I'm sure Alan_J had some dates but they must be in another thread. I cannot see them pre-dating 1926 by very much. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
I wonder why there are a few blocks of house numbers missing? (or apparently missing) Coquet Street for example.
|
|
|