Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Meath Street. Dublin

Options
  • 08-12-2013 10:57pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭


    i wonder could anyone shed any light on this. I am doing research on Meath Street in the 1901 census and using the browse option-Dublin, Merchants Quay, Meath Street I find that there are no houses listed before number 26. Thoms lists houses 1-25 so I am wondering where they have got to on the census. I get the same result in the 1911 census.


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    The portion of Thomas Street west of the junction with Meath Street is in Usher's Quay Ward, as are some of the addresses immediately to the west of Meath Street (e.g. Hanbury Lane, South Earl Street).

    I looked first at Usher's Quay in 1901, and found nothing of Meath Street, but Lo! - it's there in 1911: http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1911/Dublin/Usher_s_Quay/Meath_St_/.

    In 1901 perhaps it feel through a crack between two wards.


  • Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭pjproby


    Brilliant piece of work. Thank you. Much appreciated.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,777 ✭✭✭shanew


    just in case it helps your research - listing from Thom's 1899 for the first section of Meath St :

    283948.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭pjproby


    Shane, thanks it all helps.
    Did Thoms publish in 1901? I was in Tallaght library and Thoms 1901 was missing from the collection.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,777 ✭✭✭shanew


    pjproby wrote: »
    Shane, thanks it all helps.
    Did Thoms publish in 1901? I was in Tallaght library and Thoms 1901 was missing from the collection.

    I dont think they missed any years, but I suppose it's possible

    next one I have is 1904 if that's any good...

    p.s. I think I may have seen a 1901 - but didn't bother with it since it the same year as the census


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,777 ✭✭✭shanew


    just checked my notes, there was definitely a 1901 edition - one was offered for sale last year


  • Registered Users Posts: 842 ✭✭✭pjproby


    Shane, thanks will keep searching.


Advertisement