RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Ringrose on Tuesday 23 February 16 09:25 GMT (UK)
-
My aunt and uncle were married in 1935 and as I couldn't find them in the usual search way I put in the road .....I found that their house had been blocked.Uncle died in the fifties and my aunt in the seventies.A few others missing too.
How was this register taken....did people send in their record or was it a house to house record.If the latter I can understand why some are missing.
Ringrose
-
Registration was carried out the same way as a census. A schedule was left and later collected by an enumerator.
Stan
-
You can see a copy of the household schedule at http://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/blog/national-registration-day-29-september-1939/
Stan
-
Registration was carried out the same way as a census. A schedule was left and later collected by an enumerator.
Stan
Just like a census, there are efficient enumerators as well as enumerators lacking in precision and accuracy.
Some properties could have accidentally been omitted.
-
Yes, I have found the same problem with several of my deceased relations
helina
-
Several entries have a ?? after the first name, or before the surname or even overall. I have a few rellies who seemed to be a 1939 register dodger.
-
Several entries have a ?? after the first name, or before the surname or even overall. I have a few rellies who seemed to be a 1939 register dodger
?? or similar marks are only seen in the transcriptions when the handwriting is unclear. They're not seen in the original images. Personally I'd rather have an honest ?? than a wild guess :)
As for 'dodging' the register, that would leave the dodger with no identity card and no access to rations! I wonder how many people were able to keep that up for 13 years (1939-1952) ???
Carol
-
I'm not really complaining because I've found masses of useful information from the 1939 Register. However it does give the impression of being transcribed in rather a hurry. There are many perfectly clear originals that have been mangled in transcription, and many obvious careless mistakes like changing the sex of the person or grabbing some details from another line on the sheet.
I haven't yet tried submitting corrections, but I will do in due course when things settle down a bit. I think they must be experiencing a big jump in the number of people online at the moment.
Mike.
-
................ many obvious careless mistakes like changing the sex of the person or grabbing some details from another line on the sheet.
I haven't yet tried submitting corrections, but I will do in due course when things settle down a bit.
Hi Mike :)
There are one or two other threads where the transcribing process has been explained. Because of possible privacy issues, the transcribers weren't given entire pages to work on as you'd expect with a census, for example. Instead they were each given a column, so one had the names, another had dates of birth etc. When the transcribed entries were 'reassembled' some data inevitably became misaligned.
I'm submitting corrections as soon as they turn up (otherwise I'd forget where they were!) and I'm confident that they'll be looked at as soon as possible.
Carol
-
Thanks Carol, that explains a lot. I must have missed those other threads. I will be submitting corrections, as I always do with any errors on FindMyPast and Ancestry.
I decided to renew my subscription after a few months' lapse, mainly to gain access to the 1939 Register. It has exceeded my expectations in its usefulness; one of the biggest benefits so far has been providing/confirming dates of birth.
Mike.
-
Whilst I understand the process of adding both maiden and married names to the register...I have one entry where the lady in question remarried in 1944 after losing her first husband in the second world war...however, her two sons have the surname of their Father who was still alive in 1939 but their Mother's married name is crossed out and replaced by her second husband's name...this could be misconstrued as it appears as though it is her maiden name and that she isn't married to the Father of the children.
I too have many absentees...but I can be patient as it is a great resource to have at your fingertips ;D
Carol
-
It should not be taken that the surname quoted on the 1938 register is the maiden name - it is the name they were known as on the date the register was taken. It is only the maiden name if the woman did not marry before then.
-
Do you mean 1939?...but the name she was known as at the time the register was taken has been crossed out Rosie?
Carol
-
It would show as crossed out because she remarried in 1944.
As Rosie says, the surname they are shown as on the Register is the surname they were using in 1939. If they were already married, it won't show their maiden name. That wasn't the intention of the Register.
-
That's not the issue here...the issue is that they crossed out her married name of who she was married to in 1939 and her children of that marriage are named and her name has been altered to her husband's name of 1944...that doesn't make sense to me as her children have their Father's name and her name is listed as her married name as of 1944....why cross out the name she was known as in 1939?
Carol
-
When the lady re-married in 1944 she would have taken her new husband's name, and part of that involved going to the Local National Registration Office to get a new identity card in her new name. Then the local office notified the Central Register, and her new name was recorded there. This was a legal requirement until 1952, when National Registration ended. By then the Register was being used for NHS purposes, and changes of name continued to be recorded in it until 1991.
-
Thanks for that MG...that makes sense....but I don't understand why they crossed her name out...another rellie who had been married before had both surnames listed without them being crossed out...Whilst I understand the need to update....I can't see the reason for crossing her previous married name out.
Carol
-
There are those women who get divorced, and then at some point subsequently (maybe years later ) start using their maiden name once again.
-
Whilst I understand the process of adding both maiden and married names to the register...I have one entry where the lady in question remarried in 1944 after losing her first husband in the second world war...however, her two sons have the surname of their Father who was still alive in 1939 but their Mother's married name is crossed out and replaced by her second husband's name...this could be misconstrued as it appears as though it is her maiden name and that she isn't married to the Father of the children.
I too have many absentees...but I can be patient as it is a great resource to have at your fingertips ;D
Carol
The inference would only be made if the person making such assumption does not understand the reason for the 1939 National Register and the reasons why and how it was updated.
For the period between 29 September 1939 and 22 May 1952 the 1939 National Register was a register for ID Cards and also at first ration books.
After 1952 it became a register for the workings of the National Health service alone (no ration cards, no ID cards) and therefore it was not so important to record names accurately.
During the war period it was very important to record people accurately, if a woman changed her name on marriage her ID card and Ration book would have to be updated, if her children did not adopt their stepfather's name (as many didn't) it was important that their names were recorded accurately as well.
The register was never about making moral judgements whether children were legitimate or not but simply a means to accurately identify and supply rations to the population.
Cheers
Guy
-
This is what I cannot find ...
A few weeks ago I found (in the free preview) my grandmother, father, uncle + another lady with her single name, her first married name & second married name.
This lady married my uncle (2nd marriage). I was chatting to my cousin & told her I'd found her mum at that address in 1939. She was a bit surprised so I went back to have another look to show her - only to find cousin's mum is no longer listed at that address, but with her parents instead (which is what we would have expected to find). And my grandmother is just listed with my father and uncle ???
So what did I see the first time round? ;D
I'm happy to wait till my library gets its access to FindMyPast in April to open the records.
But am I going mad?!
Pat
-
Ration books were still being issued in 1949 I think? I think I was given one in 1949.
-
Rationing ended July 4, 1954. You can see a ration book for 1953-54 at https://talkaboutbletchley.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/tighten-our-belts/
Stan
-
There should be a discount on the subscription for those of us who submit corrections. Every time I do it I resent doing their work for them . . . for free ::)
I must have sent a dozen corrections already to the 1939 Register. I only bother at all because it might help other genuine researchers, but it annoys me that a commercial organisation relies on volunteers to do all its proof-reading :-X
Mike.
-
There should be a discount on the subscription for those of us who submit corrections.
I think the problem with that is people would start sending spurious corrections giving the firm more than a little extra work to sort the wheat from the chaff.
I used to send corrections to Ancestry when they first started but gave up when it started taking longer and longer for them to apply them
-
I think the problem with that is people would start sending spurious corrections giving the firm more than a little extra work to sort the wheat from the chaff.
I sued to send corrections to Ancestry when they first started but gave up when it started taking longer and longer for them to apply them
An additional problem is people already send "corrections" when the transcript is accurate.
Cheers
Guy
-
An additional problem is people already send "corrections" when the transcript is accurate.
True but that could be because they have not read the guidelines for sending corrections ie you should be commenting on the accuracy of the transcription and not on the fact reported in it eg if the record says great aunt Gertrude was 37 then that is what should be transcribed despite the fact you know she was 87.
-
I think the problem with that is people would start sending spurious corrections giving the firm more than a little extra work to sort the wheat from the chaff.
I sued to send corrections to Ancestry when they first started but gave up when it started taking longer and longer for them to apply them
An additional problem is people already send "corrections" when the transcript is accurate.
Cheers
Guy
The spurious corrections problem never occurred to me, being the innocent soul that I am ::)
Corrections where the transcript is accurate but the information is wrong work better on Ancestry, where they add alternate information, leaving the original transcript intact . . . 'though obviously they really mean alternative ;) ;D
Mike.
-
I wouldn't have the transcriber's job...it must have been very difficult to read and translate the written word...I think we should be thankful that we have such a valuable resource available :D
It has answered many questions for me.
Carol
-
I have done a small amount of (unpaid) transcribing for FamilySearch and a lot more for my own use. By comparison to some of the old PRs the 1939 Register is child's play. All the records I've seen so far have been easily readable. And as it's a commercial operation I assume the transcribers are paid :-\
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong ;D
Mike.
-
I wouldn't have the transcriber's job...it must have been very difficult to read and translate the written word...I think we should be thankful that we have such a valuable resource available :D
It has answered many questions for me.
Carol
We only know what the words say as they are our ancestors!
I came across my sister in laws grandparents yesterday,only by using grannie's DOB,the surname should have been Mutlow,but was clearly written as Mutton. DOH.
Nothing I could do to correct it as it was transcribed exacly as written.
-
I have done a small amount of (unpaid) transcribing for FamilySearch and a lot more for my own use. By comparison to some of the old PRs the 1939 Register is child's play. All the records I've seen so far have been easily readable. And as it's a commercial operation I assume the transcribers are paid :-\
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong ;D
Mike.
While a lot of the handwriting is good, I've found a lot that is quite appalling, and can understand why the transcribers had such a job.
My husband's great grandparents have both the street name and their surname wrongly transcribed - I had to trawl through the area to find them - and can understand how what was written has been transcribed as it is.
-
I have done a small amount of (unpaid) transcribing for FamilySearch and a lot more for my own use. By comparison to some of the old PRs the 1939 Register is child's play. All the records I've seen so far have been easily readable. And as it's a commercial operation I assume the transcribers are paid :-\
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong ;D
Mike.
I've seen some horrendous handwriting in the 1939 register, yet some beautiful neat registers from the late 1700s. And in every census from 1841 to 1911 there's been a wide range of readability. I've been a bit frustrated with some of the transcriptions from 1939 to be honest but I think FindMyPast have got the message loud and clear by now!
-
Those Rectors from 1700 probably had good education where copper plate handwriting was well practised. Where as there is no guarantee the numerators had similar instruction.
-
I have done a small amount of (unpaid) transcribing for FamilySearch and a lot more for my own use. By comparison to some of the old PRs the 1939 Register is child's play. All the records I've seen so far have been easily readable. And as it's a commercial operation I assume the transcribers are paid :-\
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong ;D
Mike.
In some cases yes you are correct the handwriting is good but think for a minute how the transcription was done.
The transcribers did not have access to the original books they were transcribing from an image.
We don't know what size or resolution was available to them but we do know they only had one column revealed at a time.
This means that they had few references to enable them to check whether that was how a J or T etc. was formed by that particular clerk.
We also do not know how much of the column was revealed to them, we can see from the current redacing the often the full image is not open to view. Did the transcribers have a similar problem with the first letter(s) being obscured or the last letter(s) in a column obscured?
Were the transcribers able to enlarge the image they viewed or was it fixed?
Were they time limited to enable the columns to be complied in the page at a certain time?
It is very easy to criticise but we do not know what problems they were faced with.
However no matter what the transcripts say we researchers now have access to the original images and can, as a last resort, browse through page by page until we find who we are looking for.
Yes it takes time but that is how we did it for years before the internet was invented.
Welcome to the real world.
Cheers
Guy
-
I've found that with a bit of extra information you can often find a record that's not transcribed very well. Occasionally a wife or husband is a better target than their spouse; sometimes abandoning surname search and going for first name and part of the birth date works; I've even found someone by date of birth alone. Worth trying a range of years for a birth, as I've found several that appear to be one or two years out based on other information I have; same for day of birth, though month seems to be have been reported accurately most of the time.
Double-barrelled names have given some more "interesting" puzzles - sometimes the first barrel works best as a first name, sometimes inverting the double-barrel seems to work.
-
I even search by borough and DOB and no surname or forename if I cannot find someone, as some records may be grossly mistranscribed.
-
I can't find my grandmother, despite knowing perfectly well where she was living in 1939.
Carole
-
I can't find my grandmother, despite knowing perfectly well where she was living in 1939.
Carole
I've found a surprisingly large number of people away from home in the Register; and a surprisingly large number of spouses apart from each other - often with relatives. And quite a few evacuees. Are these possibilities? Or is she still redacted for some reason?
-
Try searching by just using her date of birth.
-
I can't find my grandmother, despite knowing perfectly well where she was living in 1939.
Carole
How old was she in 1939?
-
I've had another wider sweep and have found her, and my mum and aunt - not where I expected. I knew 1939 was when they moved from Thame to Rochester - my grandfather had already made the move - but they weren't at either place, they were at High Wycombe, presumably in temporary lodgings.
The moral from this is that although you may have grown up in a family where you've heard all the stories about the family so often you can repeat them word for word, there's still something new to learn ;D
Carole
-
It's not just child evacuees who are away from home in 1939, I've found a few adults who have moved out of London... mostly married women who return to their family in the countryside while their husbands stayed in the city.
-
I found my grandfather in Bishop Auckland - I had expected to find him in Gateshead where he was a teacher. I think that he, and my grandmother, went with the evacuees from his school.
William
-
Merchant Navy officers and men (not on leave) would usually not be listed.
-
I've found a family from Runcorn where at least 3 children have been evacuated to addresses on the outskirts of Blackpool (the others are no doubt redacted). Father is at home working, but mother is staying in a boarding house in central Blackpool, no doubt trying to ensure that her brood had settled in OK.
Such arrangements were probably unusual. Most places in the countryside would not have beds available for visiting mums.
-
Like the census, the 1939 Register records where someone was on a single night. It was taken on a Friday, so people in hotels and boarding houses may be visiting for the weekend.
-
Like the census, the 1939 Register records where someone was on a single night. It was taken on a Friday, so people in hotels and boarding houses may be visiting for the weekend.
My family can only have been there for a few months at most. I suppose people who moved were officially recorded by other means like National identity cards. What I found interesting is that the 1939 census was updated. My husband's grandfather died in North Africa in 1941 and his grandmother re-married in 1943 and the date of her 2nd marriage and change of name is recorded on the census (but not her and her new husband's deaths when their house was hit by a flying bomb in 1944).
BTW the transcribers managed to read Chila and Turuham as their surnames instead of Child and Turnham.
Carole
-
My family can only have been there for a few months at most. I suppose people who moved were officially recorded by other means like National identity cards. What I found interesting is that the 1939 census was updated.
It was not a census but a register and was used to produce identity cards. ID cards had spaces for change of address
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Registration_Act_1939
-
Changes of address were noted on Identity Cards, and recorded locally, but not in the National Register. If someone moved to another district you might see the three-letter code for the new district, but not always. You won't normally see deaths recorded on the Register, the 'D-Codes' were usually on the closed part of the right-hand page, although they are occasionally seen on the left-hand page.
-
I have just 'unlocked' my mothers record and it does not give her married name. Her sisters records have the amendment though.
-
I have just 'unlocked' my mothers record and it does not give her married name. Her sisters records have the amendment though.
I found the same for one relative who I'm certain married. In the majority of cases I've found the married name entered later.
-
Up to 1952 it was a legal requirement to notify all changes of name or address, but after National Registration ended it was a matter for the NHS. If a woman didn't notify her doctor of her change of name, or the doctor didn't pass the information, no-one would be prosecuted as a result. I have one case where a woman married in 1944, and again in 1958, but only the 1944 married name appears in the Register. If your mother married after 1952, and her sisters married earlier, that might be the answer. If not, bang goes my theory!
-
My parents married in January 1944, it was their only marriage. Both of them were in the Forces at the time, their records have the marriage showing on them.
Rosie
-
I have just psted the same thing only there are 4 name changes on the page it seems strange that when they marry the name should have been backdated
-
My great grandfather is not with his wife and children in the register, he was 48 by then and I have searched high and low, using his DOB, name variants etc, either he has been grossly mistranscribed or was abroad at the time. Born in 1891 so would not be redacted as he died in 1968. If he did "dodge" the register, then yes, he would not have an ID card so why dodge it?