Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - MerryM

Pages: [1] 2
1
The Common Room / Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« on: Sunday 08 November 15 16:40 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: coombs on Sunday 08 November 15 16:29 GMT (UK)
So people born in the 1880s and 1890s probably have been redacted due to the NHS not updating their death records. I'd think though during 2014-2015 transcribing tha common sense would be someone born 1880-1900 would the most likely not be alive in 2015. Even people born pre 1880 may have been redacted.

I thought everyone showing a birth date before 1915 was automatically included?

2
The Common Room / Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« on: Sunday 08 November 15 16:36 GMT (UK)  »
I just thought Id have another look for my dad and this time I just put in his date of birth without the name (I've probably already done this but never mind!). As I was looking through the results I noted just how many more women than men there were - the first three pages had 15 women and five men each - then I remembered I'd selected male at the start, so what are so many women doing in the results?

EDIT _ forget that - when I went back to the search page the Male I'd entered had magically gone. Still some women in the results though, and my father is still not there.

3
The Common Room / Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« on: Sunday 08 November 15 16:28 GMT (UK)  »
I looked up a group of random people from my tree who were all born after 1915 and all died well before the 1990s. Of the ten or twelve people I looked for I only found one (and I did try quite a few variables etc and as one was my father I tried even harder to find him). Obviously some may be very  badly mistranscribed etc etc but I was still pretty surprised at the poor success rate.

4
The Common Room / Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« on: Sunday 08 November 15 12:48 GMT (UK)  »
Does anyone know if these second names do indeed appear if you buy the page?

The dreaded Brian Redshaw appears for Selina where I have a blank record, but I note he isn't with his parents and family - The original record I had for him (with family) showed his year of birth as 1888 though he was actually born in 1934. He died in 2009 so his record should be closed in 1939 as he died after the cut off.

5
The Common Room / Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« on: Sunday 08 November 15 12:04 GMT (UK)  »
lol Yes!

I've just searched 1616a 003 and received results for 002!

At the end of the day I'm not even interested in the Redshaws, but one of the set of records for this family has all the other details for my Clark grandparents (dates of birth and occupation) and I'm just trying to work out if I should be buying the page (and if so which one!!) or whether that will just give me the Redshaws!


6
The Common Room / Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« on: Sunday 08 November 15 11:44 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: Selina on Sunday 08 November 15 11:40 GMT (UK)
Actually I don't think Brian is the blank person as I get the dashes plus his name, so if blank person is no. 17 (which I didn't think to note!) then it must be Janet E. Weatherley (Gordner) who is the blank person and the other occupant of the house.

Selina

See my post #182 - Brian/blank person and Janet Weatherley are both number 17, but they have different item numbers!!

7
The Common Room / Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« on: Sunday 08 November 15 11:42 GMT (UK)  »
If I search 1616A 004 the entries I get as results are at least partly 003 (I've not looked at them all)!!


8
The Common Room / Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« on: Sunday 08 November 15 11:39 GMT (UK)  »
Selina - That's interesting that you say Brian is number 15 (which is the number I have for him in 006) but in 005 I have him as 17 (the blank entry underneath Paddick).

I'm getting a headache! lol

9
The Common Room / Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« on: Sunday 08 November 15 11:35 GMT (UK)  »
As Brian is individual 17 (ie the blank person for me!) I thought I'd look to see who persons 15, 16, 18 and 19 are (if they were not closed, obviously). I started at the end of page 2 but when I got to Janet E  Weatherley (Gordner) I discovered she was individual 17 too. I then discovered those I've looked at so far other than Brian (maybe 10 records) are all item number 04 not 05 though 05 was my search criteria.

*sigh*

Pages: [1] 2