RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: dawnsh on Wednesday 18 November 15 19:45 GMT (UK)
-
Oldest people in the 1939 register
(no-one born before 1835 listed)
John C Francklow born 1835, died 1944 North Bucks aged 109
Julia Cass born 1835, died 1939 Bridgwater aged 104
-
nothing I didn't know already. Although saying that, my first application was way back under FOI and I found my grandmother had had a partner for 8 years, got all the goss from my mum. It was good I got that info then because sadly, she wouldn't have remembered it all now.
Disappointed with it really (1939) There are so many errors. FindMyPast are playing silly bgrs with the TNA reference. They've learned nothing from last year.
-
50 babies less than a day old designated with the first name "Baby"
Rob
-
My oldest ancestor alive in 1939 was born in 1860 and oldest ancestor sibling was born in 1856. I have found out lots of new info, including spouses and I found my nans older half brother.
I have managed to get lots of DOBs of ancestor siblings, saves a lot of cert buying. I had to check my tree to see which ones were still alive in 1939.
-
50 babies less than a day old designated with the first name "Baby"
Rob
thousands called ?, ??, ad infinitum
-
My oldest ancestor alive in 1939 was born in 1860
My oldest ancestor alive on the 1939 was born 18 July 1851, however they have transcribed her as born on 15 July 1851. I am assuming this is just a transcription mistake but it does make me wonder how many of those finding new birth dates from the "free" search are actually getting the right date?
Edit: I think its just a mistranscription as they have her husband down as born 15 December 1853 when it should be 18 December 1853
-
I've found FindMyPast's version of the 1939 Register useful in determining the addresses of brothers and sisters of my paternal grandfather, a part of my family that interests me because I knew little about them before starting family history research.
Blue
-
I have learnt to write firmly and make sure all letters and numbers are clear. Then I might not have twenty years added to my age, transcribed as 1872 instead of 1892. :D
-
My oldest ancestor alive in 1939 was born in 1860
My oldest ancestor alive on the 1939 was born 18 July 1851, however they have transcribed her as born on 15 July 1851. I am assuming this is just a transcription mistake but it does make me wonder how many of those finding new birth dates from the "free" search are actually getting the right date?
Edit: I think its just a mistranscription as they have her husband down as born 15 December 1853 when it should be 18 December 1853
That reminds me, my oldest ancestor in 1939 was actually born 1851. I did think another one born 1860 but then I remembered my great, great gran born 29 May 1851, she died in 1941.
-
I found the birth of Rolf Creasy, MD, who was born in 1863 but I could not find any birthday/baptism for him born in Colombo. Ceylon. In some publications he was in fact mentioned as "son of" (as they did in those days) but no Rolf name. Plus I got his 2nd wife Elizabeth Alice Welch, born
Mere, Wiltshire, 1873. Their servant was included too which did not do me much good.
-
It may be a good idea to buy the certs as a backup if the DOB's listed on the 1939 register have DOBs which are a few days/months out, we know many will be a year or so out.
One 3xgreat gran was born in 1852, seems her birth was not registered and she died in 1932, so 7 years before a register which would have recorded her DOB.
-
The oldest person in my family still alive in 1939 is Sarah Biggs, born 1841. She was living alone in 1939! She died just a few months later, aged 98.
I've not found any major revelations from the 1939 register, as yet. I'll have to wait until the end of 2016 to find out more about my grandfather's mysterious first wife (born in 1916, so still redacted).
Mostly, the 1939 register has removed quite a few "question marks" from my tree, and I've confirmed quite a few deaths and marriages using it. I've barely started... lots more to be found!
-
Mysteries: 1) My parents and grandmother were recorded in Cambridge not Boston, and at separate addresses. 2) I am quite unable to find my father's sister and her family in the London area, married name James and Lucy Smeaton; she was usually known by her second name Ida. She was b 1895 in Boston. Suggestions welcomed.
-
I found my Uncle Jack's wife's maiden name. For some reason I thought she was French, don't know why. She was from Plymouth?? I still can't find their marriage, I wonder if they met & married in France, perhaps thats where it came from :)
-
For my direct line
3 x already-knew-thats
2 x confirmation of being still alive and so could better pinpoint their deaths
1 x first piece of corroborating evidence of an adopted child
Happy with that
-
Mysteries: 1) My parents and grandmother were recorded in Cambridge not Boston, and at separate addresses. 2) I am quite unable to find my father's sister and her family in the London area, married name James and Lucy Smeaton; she was usually known by her second name Ida. She was b 1895 in Boston. Suggestions welcomed.
I see she is Lucy I K when she married. There is this one though no sign of James with her
Lucy I K Sheaton 1897 Paignton U.D. Devon
She is with an Emily Tampin who I believe may be Emily Oliver who married Francis E Tampin in West Ham reg district in 1925. He is possibly in Walthamstow or Leyton on his own.
-
More questions than answers ::
Why was gr aunt listed with both maiden and married name, couple only married 1949, where is gr uncle is he one of the 2 redacted folk on the page ???
Diffferent birth year by 9 years, do I have the wrong gr aunt on my tree ??? What is the chance of two couples with the same names marrying because that would be the only simple explanation :-\
Oh well back to sleuthing......
Rest of the family where I expected them to be so didn't need the records, could see from the preview ;D
-
Why was gr aunt listed with both maiden and married name, couple only married 1949, where is gr uncle is he one of the 2 redacted folk on the page ???
The register was updated over time so married names were added later. Sorry, no juicy mystery ;)
-
Ah that could be the answer to that one ;D
Still the birth year a discrepancy of 9 years is a large one, ???will have to check into that but would have made her only 34 and not 43 when child was born.
-
Discrepancies of multiples of 9 always ring alarm bells that the figures have been transposed eg 34 & 43, 23 & 32, 27 & 72 etc.
-
I found a little mystery. My great aunt was using a surname that she did not acquire legally until she married her second husband nine years later. However husband number two was listed living somewhere else with some unrelated people.
Her mother is living with her and also someone whose details are still closed. Not either of her children that I know of as I found them in other places.
Great aunt's first husband's name is in brackets after the name she was using. Maybe added when she died?
Venelow
-
Venelow - the name in brackets is the name she was using in 1939, and the main surname given for her is the one that was added later. A little confusing - the 1939 register is supposed to be a snapshot of people in 1939, so I would prefer it if the later names were put in brackets.... maybe a change FindMyPast could make to avoid confusion?
-
Hi Clairec
Thanks for that clarification. Yes it is confusing and seems to go against logic.
I have not unlocked any households as I can identify most of my relatives from that era. I wonder how many people are buying? I have just received a special time limited offer but I won't be taking it up as Great Aunt's first husband is not living with her and he's the chap I really wanted to know about.
Thanks again
Venelow
Canada
-
Hi Clairec
Thanks for that clarification. Yes it is confusing and seems to go against logic.
I have not unlocked any households as I can identify most of my relatives from that era. I wonder how many people are buying? I have just received a special time limited offer but I won't be taking it up as Great Aunt's first husband is not living with her and he's the chap I really wanted to know about.
Thanks again
Venelow
Canada
Not against logic when you think what the register was used for it was used by the NHS to track living people therefore the current name was the important name.
There is no confusion when the image is viewed as later additions & changes are obvious.
The image is also useful where a woman has married for a second time after 1939 as both married names are shown.
Cheers
Guy
-
The image is also useful where a woman has married for a second time after 1939 as both married names are shown.
Cheers
Guy
My mum is one of those who married twice,to my dad in 1948,he died in 1970,and then again in 1973.
So now I've managed to unlock her entry I can see all 3 of her names,and a few dates and letters alongside which I'm still trying to work out. Her younger brother is listed with the wrong year of birth,1936 instead of the correct one of 1933,although that date in Feb is correct.
-
But what about the situation were a woman got divorced, but continued to use her married name, but then many years later reverted back to her maiden name?
-
But what about the situation were a woman got divorced, but continued to use her married name, but then many years later reverted back to her maiden name?
That would depend on what amendments the NHS added to the register. The divorce date may have been added as the woman would no longer be covered by her ex-husbabd's National Insurance contributions.
If she informed the NHS when she reverted back to her maiden name that mught have been recorded. Such amendments were all down to the individuals updating the register.
Cheers
Guy
-
I finally found my mother, pretty much where I expected, but with her surname wrongly entered or transcribed. I also found her employer's wife, but could not at first find her employer (a titled politician). The transcriber obviously had trouble there as well! I haven't unlocked either record, as I doubt if they would add anything.
-
My great aunt's date of birth was altered on the form from 20 Feb 1900 to 31 Oct 1898; the alteration was in different handwriting, with a reference EGD 15.8.51. Can anyone explain this? These were not her initials, and it seems odd that someone might be checking 1939 details in 1951 and correcting the record.
Neither date has provided her Irish birth certificate unfortunately :(
-
nothing horrifying or surprising, I got some new occupations and exact birth dates, but nothing else
The one set of records I would love to look at would be the irish censuses after 1926, but that will never happen until I am in my mid 60s
-
The one set of records I would love to look at would be the irish censuses after 1926, but that will never happen until I am in my mid 60s
I tracked down the 10 or 12 households I expected in England/Wales. I'll probably go to Kew to look more closely in the New Year. Nothing very dramatic, except maybe Eileen Gray? Pearson? Allen?
Most of the ones I was interested in were redacted.
sirsimon, Electoral Rolls can be a great help, though you have to root through the books yourself, except for Dublin 1938-1964.
-
I found a 2xgt. aunt living with 2 of her nieces in Dorset, which is what I half suspected, but nice to have found them all together. Youngest niece shown as a "tennis ball coverer".....not come across that before.
-
I found my grandparents and great grandparents, no surprises, they are where they should be, except one of my grandfather's is still officially closed, despite having died in 1993 and I will have to pay for a death certificate to get them to open it, despite it being their mistake, after all they have access to death records.
I know he is where he should be though, so am not going to bother because the next entry is my grandmother and she is not showing her surname just ditto, so it has to be grandad above under the big black banner!!!
Kerry ;D ;D
-
In my view no mistake Kerry; the lists were only updated until 1991. You say your Grandad died in 1993.
-
My great aunt's date of birth was altered on the form from 20 Feb 1900 to 31 Oct 1898; the alteration was in different handwriting, with a reference EGD 15.8.51. Can anyone explain this? These were not her initials, and it seems odd that someone might be checking 1939 details in 1951 and correcting the record.
Neither date has provided her Irish birth certificate unfortunately :(
In 1951 the 1939 National Register was still being used for some of its original purpose ID cards and rationing it could possibly have been for one of those reasons.
ID cards did not need to be carried after 22 February 1952 and the National Registration Act was repealed on 22 May 1952
Food rationing did not end until 4 July 1954 but even then some items were in short supply.
Cheers
Guy
PS tennis balls used to have covers sewn over the rubber core
-
I found my grandparents and great grandparents, no surprises, they are where they should be, except one of my grandfather's is still officially closed, despite having died in 1993 and I will have to pay for a death certificate to get them to open it, despite it being their mistake, after all they have access to death records.
I know he is where he should be though, so am not going to bother because the next entry is my grandmother and she is not showing her surname just ditto, so it has to be grandad above under the big black banner!!!
Kerry ;D ;D
Maybe, maybe not by 1939 many households had evacuees living with them, much would depend on the location of the house
Cheers
Guy
-
I have done quite well so far with the 1939 Index. So far .... and its not the 1939 Index's fault.
Audrey Edith Trump born 24 January 1914 Meikila, Burma from her father's WW1 Service Record, her birth and additionally her Baptism in India.
1939 Index Audrey E. Dawson 1914 (Chapman). Living at Elland
(Married and living with) Frank Chapman. Marriage 1937 Halifax Reg. Dist. (probably at Elland).
1954 Married Herbert Dawson. Sep Qtr 1954, Halifax. The Free BMD Transcriber has ? ? on their details. Normally I try to post a "Postem" on Free BMD but I too am in a state of confusion.
Marriages Sep 1954 Free BMD
CHAPMAN Audrey E DAWSON Halifax 2b 1343
Dawson Herbert Chapman Halifax 2b 1343
Dawson Herbert Whiteman Halifax 2b 1343
Whiteman Audrey E Dawson Halifax 2b 1343
Audrey's Brother Henry Easton Trump also gets married in the Halifax Registration District in 1937 so I have Audrey as the right person!!
-
My grandfather has the reference PWC 593/5286 written on the right hand side page. No-one else on the page has anything like that. He was working as a Government Inspector of sewers and was staying in a boarding house at the time. presumably temporarily while inspecting sewers in the local area.
Any ideas what it might mnean?
-
My grandfather has the reference PWC 593/5286 written on the right hand side page.
I believe that is a Post War Credits reference
-
We all have a rough idea what Post War Credits are but here is a more official answer.
"Post War Credit certificates were issued during the Second World War as recognition for the higher taxes paid by the public to support the war effort. The additional tax plus 38% interest was repaid by 1973 to most of those who had retained their certificates" Source - This Money.
-
Thank you that makes sense. I do remember my father getting a repayment of Post war Credits - big panic to find Certificate! But I suppose that would be from his own tax contributions. My grandfather died in 1960, so would that mean he never got anything back from them?
-
We all have a rough idea what Post War Credits are but here is a more official answer.
"Post War Credit certificates were issued during the Second World War as recognition for the higher taxes paid by the public to support the war effort. The additional tax plus 38% interest was repaid by 1973 to most of those who had retained their certificates" Source - This Money.
My father had a lot of PWCs, but he died in 1971 and was never repaid. Reminds me of Bismark's pension scheme in Prussia, where a generous pension would be paid to all men over 67; unfortunately the life expectancy was only in the low 60s.
-
A lot of mistranscriptions in the records that I have redeemed my credits for,
one accidentally purchased twice, two couples, the younger wife and her parents (different name) in same household (why is database not linked to show this?).
no extra discount on package of 15 credits, despite message saying this had been applied.
no way to identify redacted member of my Mum's family, as both she and her younger brother are not on visible list.
And now they are asking me to identify address of duplicated purchase and all names of that household despite the fact that I have to look them up in their data-base to do so.
I am unable to find anyone that I don't already have full information for.
I think I would advise waiting before paying for information, as if I finally get round to using up all my credits and notifying them of all mistakes, I suspect that I will have done as much work as they have on this database, so why is it me paying them?
-
Nice one Dudley
-
Nothing that I didn't already know - except my own record - which is locked!!
-
From 1946, Post War Credits were repayable, subject to certain conditions, at age 65 for men and age 60 for women. From 1954 they were repayable in case of death or bankruptcy. From 1972 they were made generally repayable on production of a certificate.
-
So my grandfather might have got his money back when he turned 65.
-
Sounds as though my Dad did too.
-
Thank you that makes sense. I do remember my father getting a repayment of Post war Credits - big panic to find Certificate!
A slight aside, but it was a happy ending - he did find his Certificate all right. But with it was a clothing coupon book, with some unused coupons - that caused a rumpus with his sisters and mother even after all those years!
-
I found my grandparents and great grandparents, no surprises, they are where they should be, except one of my grandfather's is still officially closed, despite having died in 1993 and I will have to pay for a death certificate to get them to open it, despite it being their mistake, after all they have access to death records.
I know he is where he should be though, so am not going to bother because the next entry is my grandmother and she is not showing her surname just ditto, so it has to be grandad above under the big black banner!!!
Maybe, maybe not by 1939 many households had evacuees living with them, much would depend on the location of the house
Cheers
Guy
Hi Guy
I know my other grandparents had evacuees, not sure about this granny, shall have to ask my dad. However in this instance, I believe it is grandad because the blacked out line is above my grandmother and her surname is ditto, therefore the blacked out person has to share the surname of my grandmother, and I deduced was head of the household because he/she came first.
Kerry :)
-
I've finally found my great-great-grandfather, after a lot of fruitless searching. He lived in the Croydon area, but I found him in Lancashire, living with his sister and her husband, which has helped me find where they died (with the help of probate records).
I can't be sure whether he was just visiting his sister, or was "evacuated" out of the London area, like his grandchildren. He was in his 70s at the start of the war, and died just after the end of the war (back in Croydon).
Shows that you shouldn't give up on searching, they might turn up eventually :)
-
To give others hope!
I visted Kew just after the 1939 was launched.
I was looking at the address my family had moved into in 1915 and were still at in 1980.
In 1939 3 lines were redacted.
Yesterday 1 of those lines had been undeacted. My uncle was born October 1915 so his record has now been released without asking.
-
I found another elderly ancestor sibling who died after 1839 and born before 1860. Eliza Jay nee Stokes, she was born in 1856. She is interesting because her sister, my ancestor isone of those whose birth appears to have gone unregistered. Their parents wed in 1839 and the sister was born in about 1852 but died in 1932, 7 years before the
1939 census 1939 register.
-
To give others hope!
I visted Kew just after the 1939 was launched.
I was looking at the address my family had moved into in 1915 and were still at in 1980.
In 1939 3 lines were redacted.
Yesterday 1 of those lines had been undeacted. My uncle was born October 1915 so his record has now been released without asking.
Thanks Dawn, that's good to know.
My grandfather was born March 1916 so I don't have long to wait.
Kerry :)
-
I've found that patience rewards. :)
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=737181.0
Blue
-
It is good to know that the records are constantly being updated.
A week ago our FH society welcomed Myko from FindMyPast and one of the questions I asked was on that very subject. My father and uncle were both born later than 1915 but although they died before 1991 they were closed on the register. Myko said to keep checking as records are being unlocked every week. Sure enough, although they were closed last Thursday, they were both open yesterday (Wednesday).
-
Another point made by Myko was to search birth date only. These were usually transcribed correctly, whereas names could be misread, and we all know where that can lead.
I had been searching for an aunt who was not with the family as expected, and using her name brought nothing. Using her birth date brought up a few, then I added her forename, resulting in two records, one of which was disregarded as there was a husband in tow. I thought about it for a little while before hitting the 'unlock household' but lo and behold, there she was, about 25 miles away working in an hotel. A transcription error, substituting a letter O for an S, changed her surname somewhat. Now I know where she was, but will never know why, and yes, I submitted the error report.
-
I wasn't aware of the 1939 Register (where have I been I hear you all ask ::)) until I got a postcard through the door from FindMyPast. Sure enough I went on FindMyPast, where I have a British records subscription, and found quite a few households of interest. I had 90 credits as well as my subscription so I blew 60 of these on the most promising household, and found out a few bits of interest. However, I now only have 30 credits left, and I think that £6.95 for one household is extortionate, so apart from trying several different names in the search to see if any other names appear on the preview, I don't think I'll bother.
-
At the moment it's £3.48 per household using the discount code that's quite reasonable :)
Blue
-
Thanks Blue, I missed your earlier post with the link. I'll give it another go, £3.48 is a much more realistic price. Cheers :)
-
I just wonder how many omissions or errors were made on the original day of this register being compiled?
There would be mistakes and objectors who deliberately refuse to fill in official forms.
And there would possibly have been people who added fake names in the hope of getting extra ration cards, possibly?
-
It's not always helpful using DOB to find people.
My uncle was born in 1933- he is on the 1939 reg as having his birthday in 1936!
He died in 1978,so I got him redacted,but they can't change his DOB despite seeing both his birth and death certs.
-
There are always some anomalies Carol. Searched high and low when it was first available, for my husbands father. He died in 1952 when hubby was only 3, and we knew his wife in 1939 (not hubby's mother). Couldn't find them anywhere, but last week he suddenly appears! Don't know why I couldn't find them before, although on her record the surname is transcribed as beginning with 'K' rather than 'R', on his it is correct. Why? Who knows, perhaps it has just been picked up on, but by whom? Another little mystery.
Anyway, back to the DOB. As you say, not always correct, for whatever reason. William (hubby's Dad) was born on 21 December 1910 but the date on 1939 Reg is 21 Sep 1910. Another mystery as to why the wrong info was given, or who gave it, but it was another stumbling block.
In good company though, the Queen's date of birth had to be corrected at some point.
-
I'd more or less given up on the 1939 register as it had proved such a disappointment. I found next to nobody!
For some reason, today I decided to have another try - perhaps it was the £3.48 offer (which, incidentally, is not just a one off. I've used it 4 times today)!
I have found 4 records that I couldn't find previously. I have my moments but I'm not so daft that I could have previously missed the lot! So, the FindMyPast workers must be adding and correcting as we speak! That's the good news...
.. The bad news is :
1. For two of the records, the transcription gave details of the people I was looking for (with a few redacted entries, of course). However, when I went to view the original record - the whole page was redacted!! Honestly! Just a sea of black!!!! I have, of course, 'chatted' online to the FindMyPast bods about these records and - guess what - they've been referred back to the technical team! AGAIN! I had queried one of them 6 weeks ago and never had a reply (other then the 'refer to technical people' standard song-sheet). They hadn't even had the decency to let me know they'd found it (except, they hadn't.....). So, another 6 weeks wait?
2. When you can get to see something other than black on the images, the transcriptions don't necessarily match the reality! So, a word of advice - if you expect to find someone with their family but they're not included on the transcription page, don't be put off. They may well still be there on the original!
3. One of the transcriptions (one with a blacked out original) had my 3 relatives living at one address with another couple who, when I looked on the 1939 electoral roll, lived in a completely different area!
Sorry about all the exclamation marks but I find I can't compose a post about FindMyPast without using rather a lot of them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I'd more or less given up on the 1939 register as it had proved such a disappointment. I found next to nobody!
For some reason, today I decided to have another try - perhaps it was the £3.48 offer (which, incidentally, is not just a one off. I've used it 4 times today)!
Yes I said as much about using it more than once on that link I posted here's my post:-
"I used the code (X2UL38W4) seven separate times today to get seven records at £3.48 each. You have to apply the code each time you purchase. I did say during discussions on here I would invest in these records at some point around Christmas and £3.48 was the sort of charge for each record that I suggested a while back. If they had been that price from the start I would have bought them straight away. It's a pity they will only remain that price for a period of time."
Blue
-
Hi jillruss,
I've been finding much as you.
Mistranscriptions of clear writing as someone obviously thought they knew better.
Anyone looking for the Backlog family (I know, sounds unlikely, but true, as corroborated elsewhere), needs to look for Buckloy!
and Norah A Fisher, a bit unclear, but does not excuse changing Noah's clearly marked sex from M to F as well, leaving a household with 6 females, the first two married!
Better news, they have today confirmed that they will unredact my mother's record, but still no news on what happens about the record that they charged for twice.
It could be a good resource, but they could probably correct it more quickly, if they (even partially)refunded credits to those who reported errors.
good luck with your searches!
-
This week I've found several people who look like they've been recently opened... good signs!
The free preview page is a bit confusing though - for example if you look at the head of house it says "5 people closed" but 3 of them are now open.
-
Maybe I should have another look for William Jack Taylor then. Clairec666, you may be interested to know this man I am talking about is from our mutual ancestor John Lucking of Foulness who wed in 1752. So a relative of yours as well as mine. Trouble is, WJ Taylor was in Luton in 1921, but died in Sussex in 1978, he was a miller. I have been unable to find him anywhere even searching by DOB, and his wife's DOB etc.
-
What have I found?
Amelia b 1866, d Q4 1939 - not in register
Ramon b 1926, d 1957 - not in register
Eric b 1928, d 1978 - not in register
Barry b 1936, d 1994 - IN register
Richard b 1937, d 1986 - IN register
That's probably only the tip of the iceberg of the missing too.
I've found Anna given as Hannah, wives given with a previous married name as their maiden name.
My Aunt Ellen is there and the preview shows my Uncle Jack "and one other" while "2 more people who are officially closed. The "one other" I know is my grandmother because I already have the details of this household from some 6 years ago. But try finding either my grandmother or uncle!! My aunt and uncle didn't have any children so who one of the "officially closed" is I don't know. The other is my mother.
Other than that, I've found nothing I didn't know already - penalty of doing a one name study!
I'm pleased for those who've found people in the 1939 National Registration but for me it's a major disappointment bordering on a disaster.
Still, I'm young enough to be able to wait until 2040 when the names of everyone included in the National Registration will be released. In the meantime, I'm looking forward to 4 Jan 2022 and the official release of the 1921 census ;)
-
wives given with a previous married name as their maiden name.
I thought Maiden names are only given when that was their surname at the time of the register (1939). :-\
-
Researching the name "Archbell" I have 4 instances
Archbell (Thompson) - maiden name Thompson, marries Archbell 1942
Beecroft (Archbell) - 1939 is already married to Archbell - later married to Beecroft 19??
Mason (Archbell) - maiden name Archbell, married Mason 1945
Seagrave (Archbell) - widow's name Archbell, married Seagrave 1959
So looks like the name in brackets is the maiden or former surname of the lady concerned :)
-
My nan is down as Connie Musgrave (Cornwell) in brackets, she married a year after the register, she wed in August 1940. I think they updated the register and did keep track on the people. That explains why they know death dates and redacted anyone under 100 still alive or anyone born after 1915 but died after 1991.
-
Thanks BumbleB :)
That's what I thought, the name in brackets was surname at time of register being compiled.
Rosie
-
Does anyone know how consistent they were with updating to add married names?
If a young unmarried woman has had no new surname added, can we conclude that she did not marry? or maybe emigrated and never came under the NHS system.
-
You can only conclude that the Register was not informed of a name change. It is most likely that the person did not marry, but the other possibilities are; that the person did not notify their doctor of their name change; the doctor did not pass the information on to the NHS Register; she married but did not change her name; she moved out of England and Wales. Up to 1952 when National Registration was still in force it was a legal requirement to notify all changes of name or address, after that is was just another bit of admin. So you can expect the information in the Register to be pretty accurate up to 1952, rather less so after then. I have seen the record of a woman who married in 1944, showing her new surname, but she married again in 1958, and the new name does not appear.
-
I thought Maiden names are only given when that was their surname at the time of the register (1939). :-\
I have one lady (although her husband would question that description!) who had only her first married name and her second married name, no maiden name. There's lass who has her married name in brackets and her maiden name not, another lass with her maiden name in brackets and her married name not. It seems totally haphazard.
Some ladies have no married name, but I know they married. Some of those I know about because I knew the couple myself, some via marriage certs, some via the GRO index.
If humans can misunderstand a form, they will. Add into that equation a World War and it's small wonder the records aren't as perfect as we'd like.
-
Does anyone know how consistent they were with updating to add married names?
If a young unmarried woman has had no new surname added, can we conclude that she did not marry? or maybe emigrated and never came under the NHS system.
No, you can't conclude she didn't. If she was young, there's a good chance she was in the NHS system from birth. So check the GRO index, that could tell you if she married, but the marriage may not be where expected. Look through the emigration records. If she's not there, she may have married in Scotland. Look at the probate calendar for a will for her parents and siblings, to see if she's an executrix (I've found a few marriages that way). Finally look for a death for her from the time she was included in the National Register onwards.
After all that, she may have lived with her man as though married but without having a little piece of paper saying so.
-
No, you can't conclude she didn't. If she was young, there's a good chance she was in the NHS system from birth. So check the GRO index, that could tell you if she married, but the marriage may not be where expected. Look through the emigration records. If she's not there, she may have married in Scotland. Look at the probate calendar for a will for her parents and siblings, to see if she's an executrix (I've found a few marriages that way). Finally look for a death for her from the time she was included in the National Register onwards.
After all that, she may have lived with her man as though married but without having a little piece of paper saying so.
If she was young enough to come under the NHS system from birth she will not appear on the 1939 Register the NHS did not start until 1948 and the available register was taken in 1939.
Anyone born after that would be on the later register which is not available.
If she was living in England & Wales at the time of the 1939 Register and married in Scotland at a later date the England & Wales register should have been updated with her new married name.
My mother who was married and living in England at the time of the 1939 Register is shown under her 1st married name (married 1938) which has been amended with the addition of her second married name. Her second marriage was in Scotland on 21 Oct 1946 and the date of the amendment 25 Nov 1946 (25/11/46).
My brother's entry (by my mum's first marriage) shows his name change in 7 December 1957. I can only assume this was when he registered at a new doctor's surgery in Edinburgh when he went up to university as he did not formally change his name, but changed it by use after her second marriage.
Do not forget systems were far more relaxed in those days, identity was more about recognising people (patients) by sight and many people only visited a doctor occasionally. Many were used to having to pay for medical treatment and so did not visit a doctor for years at a time.
If a doctor knew the person in the community rather than as their doctor he/she may not think to amend ther medical notes, I believe this to be the case with my brother as we lived in a village where everyone knew everyone else by sight.
Cheers
Guy
PS My brother's record is open as though he was born in England in time for the 1939 Register (13 Sep 1939) he drowned in Scotland in 1958.
-
I am doing quite well with my Ceylon names. Quite a few of them have at least one English census with birthplaces in Ceylon and to name a few places Galle, Ceylon, Colombo, Ceylon, or my favourite Nuwara Eliya, Ceylon birth places. Records in Ceylon are very sporadic so the 1939 Index has helped me immensely for those who happen to be in England in 1939.
-
Does anyone know how consistent they were with updating to add married names?
If a young unmarried woman has had no new surname added, can we conclude that she did not marry? or maybe emigrated and never came under the NHS system.
I've found two women so far who I'm 99% sure got married after 1939, yet only their maiden name appears on the register. I've double-checked everything, and I can only conclude that a name change was never recorded, or not transcribed (I've not purchased the images for these records)
-
I thought Maiden names are only given when that was their surname at the time of the register (1939). :-\
I have one lady (although her husband would question that description!) who had only her first married name and her second married name, no maiden name. There's lass who has her married name in brackets and her maiden name not, another lass with her maiden name in brackets and her married name not. It seems totally haphazard.
Some ladies have no married name, but I know they married. Some of those I know about because I knew the couple myself, some via marriage certs, some via the GRO index.
If humans can misunderstand a form, they will. Add into that equation a World War and it's small wonder the records aren't as perfect as we'd like.
I believe that marital status for women was an important consideration later in the war when the Department of Labour was directing women to work in factories, or to be conscripted.
-
I have one lady (although her husband would question that description!) who had only her first married name and her second married name, no maiden name.
What dates did she marry :-\
-
If she was already married to her first husband by the time of the 1939 Register then her maiden name will not be listed. Only if her first marriage was post-1939 Register date would her maiden name be shown.
-
Does anyone know how consistent they were with updating to add married names?
If a young unmarried woman has had no new surname added, can we conclude that she did not marry? or maybe emigrated and never came under the NHS system.
No, you can't conclude she didn't. If she was young, there's a good chance she was in the NHS system from birth. So check the GRO index, that could tell you if she married, but the marriage may not be where expected. Look through the emigration records. If she's not there, she may have married in Scotland. Look at the probate calendar for a will for her parents and siblings, to see if she's an executrix (I've found a few marriages that way). Finally look for a death for her from the time she was included in the National Register onwards.
After all that, she may have lived with her man as though married but without having a little piece of paper saying so.
The person in question is 16 at the time of registration. I found two marriages in the GRO index in the 1940s which match her name and middle initial and are in the right district, so I guessed that one of these is hers. I did not find a death that matches her maiden name. Of course it needs further research, but she is not a close relative and I am just curious.
You can only conclude that the Register was not informed of a name change. It is most likely that the person did not marry, but the other possibilities are; that the person did not notify their doctor of their name change; the doctor did not pass the information on to the NHS Register; she married but did not change her name; she moved out of England and Wales. Up to 1952 when National Registration was still in force it was a legal requirement to notify all changes of name or address, after that is was just another bit of admin. So you can expect the information in the Register to be pretty accurate up to 1952, rather less so after then. I have seen the record of a woman who married in 1944, showing her new surname, but she married again in 1958, and the new name does not appear.
Do not forget systems were far more relaxed in those days, identity was more about recognising people (patients) by sight and many people only visited a doctor occasionally. Many were used to having to pay for medical treatment and so did not visit a doctor for years at a time.
If a doctor knew the person in the community rather than as their doctor he/she may not think to amend ther medical notes, I believe this to be the case with my brother as we lived in a village where everyone knew everyone else by sight.
Thank you, Mean Genie and Guy, I think this explains it.
She is someone of whose existence I was previously unaware. I expect I will get to the bottom of it eventually.
-
I wasn't surprised to find that my aunts who married in 1940 had their maiden name lightly crossed out and their married name written in the column, but what did surprise me was to find my cousin, who must just have been visiting my maternal gran and my parents on the day of the registration and was at school at the time, had her maiden name changed too. She didn't marry until 26 March 1955 and her record was altered on 6.9.1956 - the date is by the side of her married name. As her first child was not born until 23 June 1957, I wonder why someone decided to show her married name, long before she would have gone to the GP about her pregnancy.
-
That would be her first child born alive, not necessarily her first child.
Sorry if tactless, but it is a possibility. If I opened up my own mother's record, it might show something similar
-
Surely you can't presume that it was just because of pregnancies that the records were added.
Whilst rationing was in force it was necessary to know how many were in a household, and after the formation of the NHS (Long may it continue) any visit to a doctor would have been recorded, and it follows that if the NHS were using the register it would be incumbent on them to update it as instructed.
I'm not stating this as absolute fact, simply how I interpret what I have heard and read.
My own mother has 2 dates recorded. One a few months after she married, and one 6 years later, although I haven't worked the latter out.
-
Took 3 times before that posted. The server is very busy apparently. Good news for RC. ;)
-
That would be her first child born alive, not necessarily her first child.
As I was 14 when she got married and 15 when her married name was added, I'm sure I would have known if she'd had a miscarriage, unless it was very early. Her mother would have told my mother and that would have been that.
-
The date that appears next to a change of name is simply the date when the change was noted in the register. This is usually soon after the marriage, but could be some time later for a variety of reasons, most of them fairly uninteresting.
-
How many different offices in how many geographical locations maintained the NHS register, I wonder?
-
Oldest people in the 1939 register: (no-one born before 1835 listed)
John C Francklow born 1835, died 1944 North Bucks aged 109
Julia Cass born 1835, died 1939 Bridgwater aged 104
There is actually one person allegedly born in each of 1825, 1824 and 1821, so respectively 114, 115 and 118 years old. Even less likely is the person born in 1964 who would thus not be born until 25 years in the future! I suspect that the validation of data entered was less than thorough.
Other odd statistics: From 1836 there are 13 survivors, from 1837 there are 20. However if you search for 1838 or later years there are 170,000, even if you search for a range of years! Maybe it's a coincidence but 1838 is the first full year of civil registration, but how could this be relevant?
Of the 41 million persons supposed to be listed there are 4,095,901 born 1916-39 (so have been un-redacted). The 1951 census at www.ons.gov.uk shows the number of people born 1916-39 was then 15,849,894, so probably 12 million of the 40 million people in the register are currently closed. It is possible to search using a last name of double quote (") and this seems to indicate there are 3.4 million records with no last name, although it's difficult to check as it's not possible to view results beyond the 100th page. Additionally there are 107,000 last names that begin with a question mark, so that looks like a possible further 3.5 million records that will never be found on any conventional search by name. Then there are the records with question marks within the name and names that have been mis-transcribed, it's a wonder anyone can be found at all. My uncle Cuthbert was listed as Catherine and female, though fortunately could still be found as his birth date was correct.
-
How many different offices in how many geographical locations maintained the NHS register, I wonder?
I think this is the list:
http://www.findmypast.co.uk/articles/1939-register-enumeration-districts
-
Thanks, Pursebearer, for the most useful referenceI'm sure it will help many of us. :)
-
Further to my comment about my cousin's married name being added to the 1939 registration list even though she didn't marry until 1955, I'm still surprised they added her married name to the 1939 registration list so many years later and bearing in mind that when she was shown with my parents and gran she was only visiting. She lived with her own parents and younger brother all her life until her marriage, so it was pointless changing her name on a register taken in 1939, showing her at an address then, when by 1955 my parents and I had also left the address. But that's bureaucracy for you I suppose.
-
They follow their guidelines rigidly. A former colleague of mine who worked in the DWP at Doncster told me that if an item could be processed immediately it would be, and the resultant letter and instructions filed until the day it was due to be processed, so if a response was required in 28 days then it would be made in 28 days. The result of successive governments trying to speed things up. The reasoning behind this was that if they replied early their employers would want to tighten the deadlines resulting in possible redundancies.
-
Updated information was added to the 1939 Register for many years after it was taken because it was the central register first for National Registration purposes, and then for the NHS. So adding a person's new name was not pointless; it was never intended to be a static document like a census, it was created to be a live register with up-to-date name and address details (and more) of everyone in England and Wales, and this is the function it fulfilled for over 60 years until the paper-based system was replaced with an electronic database.
Registering everyone where they happened to be on 29 September 1939 was just a way of capturing the whole population in one go and issuing everyone with an Identity Card. It didn't matter in the slightest whether someone was at their permanent address or was just visiting, because their address would also be updated whenever they moved, whether it was the next day, or decades later.
-
OK. But I thought everyone had National Identity Cards during and after the war which served the same purpose. I suppose it gave the bureaucrats something to do. If businesses ran the way government does, they'd all be bankrupt within a few months.
-
Updated information was added to the 1939 Register for many years after it was taken because it was the central register first for National Registration purposes, and then for the NHS. So adding a person's new name was not pointless; it was never intended to be a static document like a census, it was created to be a live register with up-to-date name and address details (and more) of everyone in England and Wales, and this is the function it fulfilled for over 60 years until the paper-based system was replaced with an electronic database.
Registering everyone where they happened to be on 29 September 1939 was just a way of capturing the whole population in one go and issuing everyone with an Identity Card. It didn't matter in the slightest whether someone was at their permanent address or was just visiting, because their address would also be updated whenever they moved, whether it was the next day, or decades later.
It is not a simple as that in 1939 it was designed as you say to be updated if required but the war was never envisaged to last as long as it did.
A little while after the war all work on the National Register was supposed to have been stopped. Questions were even asked in Parliament if it had been finished with and assurances were given in Parliament that the National Register was no longer being used.
The 1939 National Registration Act itself was repealed on 22 May 1952.
It seems though that those assurances were basically deliberate lies to deceive MPs, I say deliberate lies as the questions were asked on a number of occasions and the answer was always the same only the number ing systen was still required.
One example of an exchange is at
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1953/may/21/national-registration-numbers#S5CV0515P0_19530521_HOC_51
National Registration Numbers
HC Deb 21 May 1953 vol 515 cc2233-4 2233
§ 11. Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
asked the Minister of Health for what purposes national registration numbers are still required; and when the use of these numbers will be abandoned.
§ Mr. Iain Macleod
National registration has been wholly abandoned. Some numbering system, however, is necessary for purposes of the National Health Service and, for reasons of economy, this is based upon the old numbers.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
How is it possible for the Minister to say that national registration has been completely abandoned when people are required to keep, remember and make use of their national registration numbers? Is he not, in effect, still attempting to hoax the public into believing that national registration has been abandoned, whereas unless the individual remembers his national registration number he can find himself in all kinds of difficulties?
2234
§ Mr. Macleod
Oh, no. Any large scheme—for example, the National Health Insurance scheme before the Health Service was introduced—is bound to be based upon a system of numbers. We have used the same system of numbers, but national registration, happily, does not exist any more, and as a consequence a lot of staff and a great deal of money have been saved.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
We have to have a number?
Mr. Iain Macleod was the MP for Enfield West and Minister of Health (Conservative)
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton was the MP for Brixton (Conservative)
Cheers
Guy
-
And obviously, in the case of my cousin, her married name was added in 1956. So I wonder how long they carried on using the 1939 register?
-
Updated information was added to the 1939 Register for many years after it was taken because it was the central register first for National Registration purposes, and then for the NHS. So adding a person's new name was not pointless; it was never intended to be a static document like a census, it was created to be a live register with up-to-date name and address details (and more) of everyone in England and Wales, and this is the function it fulfilled for over 60 years until the paper-based system was replaced with an electronic database.
Registering everyone where they happened to be on 29 September 1939 was just a way of capturing the whole population in one go and issuing everyone with an Identity Card. It didn't matter in the slightest whether someone was at their permanent address or was just visiting, because their address would also be updated whenever they moved, whether it was the next day, or decades later.
But what about Merchant seamen and Merchant Navy Officers? Why were they not registered at their HOME address?
If you were to ask me, this 1939 register has been oversold, or in the language of Insurance: mis-sold
-
I wouldn't have thought that it could be claimed that the register was being mis-sold as no-one needs to spend any money before knowing what is available, there has been lots of information out there for quite some time.
It is free to search as many times as required, and is then one's choice to unlock a household (or households) with credits if desired.
By searching the addresses option you can find out the names of the people who lived on a street or road. I was curious as to whether an elderly couple I had lived next door to when I was very young had been there as early as 1939. They were, but unfortunately miss-transcribed so I hadn't found them by name. All cost me nothing to find this out.
As for the merchant navy question, I don't pretend to know, but would they not already be registered when joining the service? The 1939 register was to record every civilian in the land.
-
Updated information was added to the 1939 Register for many years after it was taken because it was the central register first for National Registration purposes, and then for the NHS. So adding a person's new name was not pointless; it was never intended to be a static document like a census, it was created to be a live register with up-to-date name and address details (and more) of everyone in England and Wales, and this is the function it fulfilled for over 60 years until the paper-based system was replaced with an electronic database.
Registering everyone where they happened to be on 29 September 1939 was just a way of capturing the whole population in one go and issuing everyone with an Identity Card. It didn't matter in the slightest whether someone was at their permanent address or was just visiting, because their address would also be updated whenever they moved, whether it was the next day, or decades later.
But what about Merchant seamen and Merchant Navy Officers? Why were they not registered at their HOME address?
If you were to ask me, this 1939 register has been oversold, or in the language of Insurance: mis-sold
The simple answer is they would normally be away at sea so would not be enumerated at their home address.
Ships would have their own provisions for rationing
-
No revelations as yet, but I have been able to find a number of DOBs, and by doing so narrowed down several spouses to be the correct people.
-
Inaccurate date of birth given - day and month correct but the year was 20 years out!
-
Today? - DoB 1901 mis-transcribed as 1907.
-
Today? - DoB 1901 mis-transcribed as 1907.
A very easy mistake to make :)
-
Inaccurate date of birth given - day and month correct but the year was 20 years out!
The year was given as 1881 and it took quite a while to identify the unknown person with my great-great-uncle but, eventually, I found her and her year of birth is 1901.
Why would she have given such a wrong year of birth?
-
I'm still missing half a town and, with it, a lot of my relations. I told FindMyPast in November and named the streets that I know are missing. As they hadn't replied, I decided to remind them today and, before I did so, I searched on TNA Discovery and entered all the Piece numbers for the town with various item numbers on each Piece (yes, I am that sad), and there were no results for an entire series. I've sent another email .........
-
What town was it, Megnsnan?
-
Halstead in Essex
-
I'm trying to find a house (Graig) in Llansadwrn, Wales which doesn't seem to be on a named road. The 1901 and 1911 censuses don't show a road, also a 1931 death certificate just gives the address as Graig, Llansadwrn.
-
If there isn't a named road you won't find it. House names haven't been indexed.
My grandmother lived in a village in Winslow RD. I had to go to TNA and look at every piece and look at the other houses to find out roughly where she was. All the houses in the villages had 'cottage' names, very few streets named.
-
I have been trying to find my mother on 1939 register she doesn't seem to exist does anyone have any ideas how I kind find her she lived in Wales but came to Liverpool on the day war was declared
-
If there isn't a named road you won't find it. House names haven't been indexed.
I guessed that :'(
Thanks for help :-*
-
Hi Dollybrush
when was she born?
-
She was born in 1913 in blanaufestiniog but she was brought up in Llandudno
-
You might try searching on her first name and exact day/month/year of birth, leaving the surname field blank?
The effective date of the 1939 Register is 29 September, after the declaration of war, so she might well be in Liverpool rather than Wales?
-
Thanks will try that
-
I tried using her married name although she wouldn't have been married then it came up with her surname crossed out and her married name put in and a date at the side which was the date she married my father so I think I have the right one now thanks
-
I found that my grandfather was living with his wife, brother and possibly a nephew at Cippenham in 1939. Is the1939 register like a census in as much as is only records who was present at the address at the time it was taken, or, can we assume that it is the permanent address of those named?
The Sirname of grandfather is misspelled. I wonder if this is a transcription error, or, he was trying to keep a low profile.
-
I found that my grandfather was living with his wife, brother and possibly a nephew at Cippenham in 1939. Is the1939 register like a census in as much as is only records who was present at the address at the time it was taken, or, can we assume that it is the permanent address of those named?
The Sirname of grandfather is misspelled. I wonder if this is a transcription error, or, he was trying to keep a low profile.
Yes the 1939 National Register only records those who were at the house on the night or who came the following day as the front of the schedule states.
"Persons to be included. All persons who spent the night of the national Registration Day in this household or establishment, whether as members, visitors, boarders, servants, or who joined the household or establishment the next morning without being enumerated anywhere else. No one else may be included."
Cheers
Guy
-
Thanks for that Guy :)
-
Like with the 1841-1911 censuses, if you have a niece/nephew/grandchild/sibling in the house there's no way of knowing if they were just staying the night or living there permanently. And if somebody with a different surname appears, you have to do a bit more digging to see if they're related to the others in the household.
-
You might try searching on her first name and exact day/month/year of birth, leaving the surname field blank?
Is anyone else finding that it won't let you search without a surname now?
I'm getting "Please enter a last name" which is very annoying, as using the birthdate I've found several people whose surname is mangled, or in some cases a woman whose married name I didn't know.
-
It's probably temporary, while the free weekend is running, to reduce the load on the server.
-
No guarantees but try using * in the surname field
-
Thanks.
-
Does any one know why the register would be amended? Probably a really simple reason, just this simple person does not know it yet! :P
the entry is as follows
Phyllis Butterfield 28 Dec 1910 Female Burler & Minder Worsted Good Single
then in different writing Butterfield is crossed out & Smith added with the date 30.12.47 KBA.M
Is this checking to find out if the person is deceased?
-
Alders,
It ties in with this marriage
Dec 1947
Butterfield Phyllis (spouse Smith)
Smith Walter
Bradford 2b 159
-
Alders,
It ties in with this marriage
Dec 1947
Butterfield Phyllis (spouse Smith)
Smith Walter
Bradford 2b 159
Yes i saw this, is it normal to annotate the register with these details?
-
I would think so. It appears on the copies I have where they have married after 1939
-
Alders,
It ties in with this marriage
Dec 1947
Butterfield Phyllis (spouse Smith)
Smith Walter
Bradford 2b 159
Yes i saw this, is it normal to annotate the register with these details?
Yes, the 1939 National Register was conceived as a register which would be updated as it was used as the basis for ration books and ID cards during WWII.
If a woman married their identity (surname) would change and the register had to change to reflect that.
In addition in the early years medical care was paid for by National Insurance which in the case of a married couple would often be paid for by the husbands N.I. payments as many wives in those days stayed at home to look after the children.
When the NHS came into being in 1948 it was financed though tax rather than contributions.
Other changes were also the trigger for amendments on the register, for example if step-children changed their name this might not be picked up by the system but when they left home if they also changed their doctor they would re-register. The registration would reflect the change of name on the 1939 Register.
Cheers
Guy
-
I'm confused by the entry I've found for my grandfather:
Borough/District: Eastbourne C.B.
Surname: Hodges
First names: Gilbert B (Doris M)
Birth year: 1910
3 more people who are officially closed
Gilbert's wife was called Doris Maud, born about 1916, I'd imagine she's one of the closed records. Not sure who the other two are (there weren't any children from this marriage, so possibly lodgers?) And why is Doris's name transcribed as part of Gilbert's entry?
I've not looked at the image yet... waiting until later this year when Doris's record should be opened and I can get some more clues about what happened to her after the war.
-
My guess is that the entry for Doris has been corrected for some reason (eg a spelling mistake) with the correction straying into the line above i.e. Gilbert's entry and the transcribers have transcribed what they saw
-
Claire, it could just be an indexing error by FindMyPast. They had my grandparents indexed with three closed records. Two will be my father and his brother but my uncle doesn't remember them having anyone with them so was bit of mystery. ??? When they had the half price offer at Christmas I decided to view it to see if there were three closed records at the address. There weren't so it looks like a pure indexing error. ::)
-
Alders,
It ties in with this marriage
Dec 1947
Butterfield Phyllis (spouse Smith)
Smith Walter
Bradford 2b 159
Yes i saw this, is it normal to annotate the register with these details?
Yes, the 1939 National Register was conceived as a register which would be updated as it was used as the basis for ration books and ID cards during WWII.
If a woman married their identity (surname) would change and the register had to change to reflect that.
In addition in the early years medical care was paid for by National Insurance which in the case of a married couple would often be paid for by the husbands N.I. payments as many wives in those days stayed at home to look after the children.
When the NHS came into being in 1948 it was financed though tax rather than contributions.
Other changes were also the trigger for amendments on the register, for example if step-children changed their name this might not be picked up by the system but when they left home if they also changed their doctor they would re-register. The registration would reflect the change of name on the 1939 Register.
Cheers
Guy
Thank you Guy, this was really helpful. :)
-
My guess is that the entry for Doris has been corrected for some reason (eg a spelling mistake) with the correction straying into the line above i.e. Gilbert's entry and the transcribers have transcribed what they saw
Claire, it could just be an indexing error by FindMyPast. They had my grandparents indexed with three closed records. Two will be my father and his brother but my uncle doesn't remember them having anyone with them so was bit of mystery. ??? When they had the half price offer at Christmas I decided to view it to see if there were three closed records at the address. There weren't so it looks like a pure indexing error. ::)
Yeah, I'm tempted to agree with you both. Hopefully I'll see for myself soon..... I'm not going to pay for credits when there's only one person open, and it'll be part of the subscription soon anyway.
Doris's record should be opened this year or next (she was born about 1916-7)... I'm intrigued as to what happened to her. I don't know what happened to her after she separated from my grandfather. Hopefully it'll show if she remarried.
I'm guessing as her record is still closed, that a) her death wasn't recorded on the register itself, and b) Findmypast haven't matched it to the death index.
-
I have found my father recorded as married when he never married my mum until 1949..now is this an error...I have looked at original and says (m)
Or was he married previous and we never knew?
There is a woman listed above him with the same surname but some 14 yrs older and being above him would indicate she wasn't his wife as entries usually run..husband wife then children.
This woman is not know to me, she is not a cousin or aunt.
This womans surname was altered in 1962.
There is one more below him which is blocked out obviously beacause of age. Could this be a wife?
All very surreal.
Val
-
Hi
This womans surname was altered in 1962.
The date might refer to something else but it would be worth trying to find a marriage (or less easily, a divorce) and getting the certificate. That would then give the original maiden name and enable lookup in the census if DOB before 1911 or for a birth cert if not
There is one more below him which is blocked out obviously beacause of age. Could this be a wife?
As the supposedly maximum possible age of someone redacted is 24, then yes, it could
-
I have posted before about my grandmother who always celebrated her birthday on 8th April and was surprised to find that her birthday was actually 5th April when she needed to get a copy of her birth cert when she was in her nineties.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=730024.msg5793237#msg5793237
I have now found her on the 1939 register with a birthday on 7th April (but correct year).
She would presumably have completed the form herself since my grandfather was working away from home at the time of the register and the only other person in the household is redacted (probably my father's youngest sibling who would be 14 at the time).
-
The majority of my family were in Scotland in 1939 so I am limited in the useful searches I can do on the 1939. I did find however that my MIL's Dad and older siblings were living literally just around the corner from where my MIL lives now. She hadn't known this because by the time she was born he had moved to another area of the city.
-
I have found my father recorded as married when he never married my mum until 1949..now is this an error...I have looked at original and says (m)
Or was he married previous and we never knew?
There is a woman listed above him with the same surname but some 14 yrs older and being above him would indicate she wasn't his wife as entries usually run..husband wife then children.
This woman is not know to me, she is not a cousin or aunt.
This womans surname was altered in 1962.
There is one more below him which is blocked out obviously beacause of age. Could this be a wife?
All very surreal.
Val
Similar thing in my family - my grandfather had an earlier marriage that was never talked about. They are living together in 1939
The lady listed with your father could be his wife, despite the age difference, and although the ordering of the records seems a little out of the ordinary, there's no reason why a wife shouldn't be listed before her husband. Or the closed record could be a wife, she could have been in her early twenties. Or the marital condition for your father could be an error.... mistakes could have been made when the register was written out. Lots of possibilities to research!
-
I've been doing my trees for many years now and have always come to terms with the fact my 2xgreat grandmother was born in 1849 and her birth doesn't appear in the GRO index. I have her baptism but no birth date is recorded.
I have found her in the 1939 just after she celebrated her 90th birthday and at last I have her date of birth! She died in 1941 aged 91
-
When the 1939 register was first available I looked at my Dad's family of 4 (mother, father, son & daughter) and could see that the birthdates were all mixed up. Although the actual dates were correct the days and months and years were a complete mix between all 4 of them so notified FindMyPast and they were quickly rectified.
Now however, on being able to see the full household I can see that the occupations are also totally mixed up so my elderly grandmother is an Instrument Maker heavy work and my Dad is listed as doing Unpaid Domestic Duties! - as if! The daughter has the occupation of the next householder on the schedule.
Another email to FindMyPast I think - but it did make me smile.
Pheno
-
One of my favourite finds to date is a (clearly-written) date of birth:
........ 29 February 1881........ ;D
-
One of my favourite finds to date is a (clearly-written) date of birth:
........ 29 February 1881........ ;D
Don't leap years have to divide by 4?
-
Don't leap years have to divide by 4?
Exactly. ;)
-
Proof positive that our ancestors had no idea when they were born,nor did they care ;D ;D ;D
-
I have a few ancestors on the 1939 Index with the correct day/month and an incorrect year.
-
I have a few ancestors on the 1939 Index with the correct day/month and an incorrect year.
I have several of these. The best is my grandfather who died just before I was born. When he was in his sixties he left my grandmother - or was chucked out by her - to live with a woman 25 years his junior: that was in the 1920s and by the time of the register he had "aged" an extra 11 years.
Unfortunately my traction engine driving great uncle Louisa turned out to be a mistranscription of James, not an early example of an alternative lifestyle
-
I have a few ancestors on the 1939 Index with the correct day/month and an incorrect year.
Yep, me too, seems pretty common. Especially if they were born in the 1890s in my family... most of my relatives born in the 1860s got the year right, which I wasn't expecting.
-
One of my favourite finds to date is a (clearly-written) date of birth:
........ 29 February 1881........ ;D
A few years ago a calendar was published (in the UK) which included things like 30th February and 31st June etc. etc. The following year a different printer was used to produce it.
-
One of my favourite finds to date is a (clearly-written) date of birth:
........ 29 February 1881........ ;D
Not as bad as the tombstone date February 31st 1898 see it at
http://anguline.co.uk/cert/stone.html
Cheers
Guy
-
I found another (adult) child of my great aunt. When I rechecked the birth indexes, her maiden name has been mistranscribed.
-
I may have found a solution to a long-standing brick wall ... But, our local library subscription only provides the name plus one household member, then there's a charge for the rest of the information. I don't have my own subscription to FindMyPast -- is anyone willing to look up one household? It's Elizabeth Merrell in Hastings, Sussex, birthdate 1871. Many thanks.
-
Hi Skipper55
Welcome to rootschat
FindMyPast t&c's do not allow us to do lookups.
Have you tried just completing this form and only filling in Hastings CB in the borough/district & Elizabeth Merrell in other household member. Leave everything else blank.
http://search.findmypast.co.uk/search-world-records/1939-register
Rosie
-
Skipper55- if your library has a Findmypast subscription it should include the 1939 register.... at least my library does.
When you get to the free preview page ("xxx is also in this household, plus 2 other people" etc.) click on "unlock this household", then my library's version asks if you want to log in or continue as guest (if you have a free account but no subscription you can log in and it won't ask for payment, I just click on guest), then you should be able to see the record. If not, ask the librarians why not!
-
I may have found a solution to a long-standing brick wall ... But, our local library subscription only provides the name plus one household member, then there's a charge for the rest of the information.
that's very strange. Did you loom this up before 16 February as that is when FindMyPast changed how the 1939 register was included. If your lookup was before 16 February I would go back now and try again and you should see it all, and if not ask the library why as now their subscription should include it
-
Hi Rosie
Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry, I didn't realize the t&cs prevented look ups for others, my apologies. Anyway, I will try what you suggest, below, on Monday when I return to the library.
:-)
Hi Skipper55
Welcome to rootschat
FindMyPast t&c's do not allow us to do lookups.
Have you tried just completing this form and only filling in Hastings CB in the borough/district & Elizabeth Merrell in other household member. Leave everything else blank.
http://search.findmypast.co.uk/search-world-records/1939-register
Rosie
-
Hi, yes, that's a good point, but I tried it just on Friday, Feb. 26. Thank you for your suggestion.
I see there is another reply on the chat board about this too, which I will try.
I may have found a solution to a long-standing brick wall ... But, our local library subscription only provides the name plus one household member, then there's a charge for the rest of the information.
that's very strange. Did you loom this up before 16 February as that is when FindMyPast changed how the 1939 register was included. If your lookup was before 16 February I would go back now and try again and you should see it all, and if not ask the library why as now their subscription should include it
-
Hi clairec666, Yes, my library has a subscription and it does include the 1939 register, but only allows me to go partway into the record before requesting a fee. I *think* I did what you suggest below, but I will take these instructions with me and give it another go on Monday. Thank you for your reply.
Skipper55- if your library has a Findmypast subscription it should include the 1939 register.... at least my library does.
When you get to the free preview page ("xxx is also in this household, plus 2 other people" etc.) click on "unlock this household", then my library's version asks if you want to log in or continue as guest (if you have a free account but no subscription you can log in and it won't ask for payment, I just click on guest), then you should be able to see the record. If not, ask the librarians why not!
-
I've been going through the register filling in things for my one-name study.
When looking at registration dates on birth certificates I have, the interval after the birth seems to average one week.
From the number of births registered in the quarter following the d.o.b. given in the 1939 Register, visits to the Registrar seem to have been getting later as the years progress. A minority of the March birth registrations from about 1890 onwards would be in the Jan-Mar quarter, for example.
It's nothing to do with the tax year - the same applies year-round.
-
When looking at registration dates on birth certificates I have, the interval after the birth seems to average one week.
Seems fast compared to my family. I've not got many birth certificates, but they all seem to register about a month after the birth, from the 1840s to the 1920s.
-
Not having confirmed entries in earlier Censuses, I found one cousin locked up in Parkhurst in the '39
Er, hooray!?
-
I purchased a few images in the first couple of weeks after the Register went live.
I've just noticed that entries which were blacked out when I purchased the images are now visible. My late aunt Sonia has appeared (without prompting from me), along with half a dozen others from the same sheet. Sonia died in 2000, well after the supposed cut-off date for updates of the original register.
It seems that it may be worth scanning the database periodically.
-
When the 1939 register first came out I looked for my Granddad and he wasn't there, he died in 1995. A few weeks ago I checked again and he was there is Hampshire, someone I didn't except him to be.
-
I may have to have another gander at the 1939 register, seeing as many entries have been unlocked. Some are still elusive such as George Musgrave born 18 March 1891. I found his wife and his son in the 1939 register but not him. I did hear that he volunteered for the war even at 48 years old as he was a soldier in WW1.
-
There was a family story of how my great-great grandfather was fleeced of all his valuable belongings (not that he would have had much) by a housekeeper named "Kate". He eventually kicked her out and got a new housekeeper who he married in 1943.
Lo and behold in the 1939 register there is my great-great grandfather living with a housekeeper named "Kate". Now I know her surname and date of birth so if I wanted to I can find out what became of her.
-
I don't know if this just happened in Lancashire, but several of the entries that I have looked at have entries on the extreme right hand side - the facing page - which seem to indicate war work - ARP Warden, Auxiliary Fire Service, WVS, etc.
I didn't notice it at first, but once I spotted it I went back and checked ones I'd seen earlier and found several examples.
Useful and interesting for a family historian,
jds1949
-
I've been going through the register filling in things for my one-name study.
When looking at registration dates on birth certificates I have, the interval after the birth seems to average one week.
From the number of births registered in the quarter following the d.o.b. given in the 1939 Register, visits to the Registrar seem to have been getting later as the years progress. A minority of the March birth registrations from about 1890 onwards would be in the Jan-Mar quarter, for example.
It's nothing to do with the tax year - the same applies year-round.
Maybe the registrars office was a substantial distance from peoples home? maybe you had to phone up and make an appointment? Impossible to speculate after 100 years, surely?
-
... that the 15th most common occupation in my database is "REDACTED"
-
The books indexed as being in BLACKBURN despite saying BLACKPOOL in capital letters on every sheet are now findable in the right part of Lancashire.
The map they show is still wrong though.
Where there other parts of the UK similarly affected?
-
I don't know if this just happened in Lancashire, but several of the entries that I have looked at have entries on the extreme right hand side - the facing page - which seem to indicate war work - ARP Warden, Auxiliary Fire Service, WVS, etc.
No, not just Lancashire, I found my g.uncle in Hull and he is an ARP Warden. I knew my gran (g.uncle's sister) in Manchester was an ARP Warden and I've a photo of her in her uniform. She use to tell a funny story of how she went out on duty one night, leaving her dinner in the oven. When she got home many hours later, her cooker and the dinner with it had been blown out of her kitchen window by a nearby bomb. I don't suppose she thought it very funny at the time, but a few years later when she use to tell her grandchildren the story, she did,
-
It's not just over on the right hand page where the wartime occupations are seen.
In the streets around where my dad was brought up, there are loads of people with occupations most people would not think of doing in peacetime.
"Full time ARP Warden" - seen any recently?
"Face mask cutter Rubber Works" - obviously making gasmasks, and working at the same place was a 20-year old woman described as "Ins. Gas Masks Rubber Works"
"Cordite worker" - ROF Chorley was in operation until recent times, having been built in 1936. "Munitions worker" seems to be common.
Britain was already at WAR.
-
The books indexed as being in BLACKBURN despite saying BLACKPOOL in capital letters on every sheet are now findable in the right part of Lancashire.
The map they show is still wrong though.
Where there other parts of the UK similarly affected?
When you think how the 1939 National Registration was transcribed this is not surprising.
Due to the current paranoia about privacy FindMyPast were forced to have the register transcribed in columns.
This means that things that seem to be obvious when one looks at the full page were hidden from the transcribers view.
Such errors are being cleared up now that it has been released.
Cheers
Guy
-
The books indexed as being in BLACKBURN despite saying BLACKPOOL in capital letters on every sheet are now findable in the right part of Lancashire.
The map they show is still wrong though.
Where there other parts of the UK similarly affected?
Other places, such as Newcastle, Newport for which there are more than one place with similar names, can one be sure there are not other similar simple mistakes?
Was any of the work contracted out to unsuitable contractors, one wonders?
-
I've just found my first Land Girl.
She's at the Institute of Agriculture at Hutton near Preston, and she is living in what is "normally men's hostel".
Most of the trainees are in their 20s and early 30s, all being volunteers at that point.
About a quarter of them are from "countryside" occupations.
However, there's a hairdresser who has just had her 46th birthday, and a woman who says she normally works in dairy farming and was born in 1891. She has then had her date of birth adjusted to 1885!
I knew that there were a good few women who jumped at the chance to get out into the countryside, but I didn't know the full range of ages and backgrounds they had.
-
I've FINALLY found 9 members of the extended family living at the house my great grandfather bought in 1937.
This took some hunting down, I can tell you, because:-
(1) My great grandfather took his wife and 6 youngest children to live in Ireland for the duration as soon as war broke out, so they were not shown as living there on 29 September 1939
(2) I knew my grandparents had lived there during the war, but I did not know whether they had been living there in September 1939, or whether they were still living in the flat on the Lea Bridge Road. Either way, I was unable to find either of them in the Register ... so perhaps to begin with they went to Ireland as well?
(3) I did not know which if any of my great uncles were living there. Vince, Stan and Ron all MIGHT have been ... but Ron was born in 1918 and so will be redacted wherever he may be.
(4) The transcriber has mistranscribed the name of the house AND the street name.
(5) The transcriber has got the FIRST of the nine people living there absolutely correct ... but has mistranscribed ALL of the others by giving them the date of birth and occupation of the NEXT PERSON DOWN. (Men doing Unpaid Domestic Duties? My grandfather an oxyacetelyne welder born in 1889? I don't think so!!! ::) )
Fortunately ... the first of the nine people was my great uncle stan ... so when I searched his name with the correct date of birth (which, fortunately, I have now, having just invested in his birth certificate using a generous contribution to the cost of my research recently made by my father) ... BINGO! Up he popped, with all the others there as well :D :D :D
-
If you do not know where someone was evacuated to on the 1939 try putting Evacuant or Evacuee in the occupation box and nothing else.
You can then cut down the number of returns by inserting other details if required.
This can help if the name has been mistranscribed
Cheers
Guy
-
If you do not know where someone was evacuated to on the 1939 try putting Evacuant or Evacuee in the occupation box and nothing else.
With the absence of a "relation" and "birthplace" column in 1939, the occupation is often the only clue we have as to how the household members are related.
I should mention that two of my evacuee relatives have "at school" as their occupation, so wouldn't show up using the method Guy suggested.
-
I've not found a single child registered as "evacuee" though there are some mystery children in some houses, mostly redacted - and known children missing from some city households.
I have however found two adults named as "evacuees" - one with 3 redacted below her, presumably her children. The other is more interesting, a woman of 38, known to be childless, a Londoner found in her father-in-law's home village (Byfield, Northants) but with a couple not believed to be related. Her husband was not found - already in the services, like a lot of younger men?