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 - sugarfizzle

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 181
1
Kent / Re: Ure Westall, 1939 Register
« on: Monday 15 December 25 12:14 GMT (UK)  »
Peter Calver from Lost Cousins has a different explanation - apparently has had access to his record when it was later added.

https://www.lostcousins.com/newsletters2/mar16news.htm#NHS

"The information that we can't see on the right-hand page of the 1939 Register......
simply records when the individual concerned moved from one doctor to another."
 
People move around a lot more now,, would move GP many times. Ure didn't move house very much, perhaps she just changed GP frequently.  :)

Margaret

2
Kent / Re: Ure Westall, 1939 Register
« on: Sunday 14 December 25 16:10 GMT (UK)  »
From the next part of the link which you shared, Debra

"9.4 The ‘postings’ column
Each entry in the Register extended across a double page spread. However, the accessioned digital record does not include the ‘postings’ column on the right hand page which contains various codes used for National Registration and National Health Service purposes. The National Archives does not have access to this column and the information it contains."

I still don't fully understand (my brain is a bit fuddled these days!), but I have a better understanding of the situation. Thank you very much.

And thanks to all who have helped me with this.
Margaret

Happy Christmas to all
 :)

3
Kent / Re: Ure Westall, 1939 Register
« on: Sunday 14 December 25 14:39 GMT (UK)  »
What medical information would they add to 1939 Register - what would be the point? I have read that the right hand page gives information re moves to a different area/GP, but not entirely sure if that is correct.

Ure Westall didn't have any complicated medical history that I know of. She was born and brought up in Enfield, today is the first time I've seen her recorded as living anywhere else.

 ???

4
Kent / Re: Ure Westall, 1939 Register
« on: Sunday 14 December 25 09:26 GMT (UK)  »
Answer found then. Thank you all.

AI generated, but seems likely -
'It was common for evacuees in the 1939 UK evacuation to appear listed twice in official records, most notably the 1939 Register, due to the timing and nature of the registration process and subsequent updates.'

Maitland is still a puzzle, I don't know that I'll find a proper conclusion for that.

Thanks to all, and Happy Christmas
 :)

5
Kent / Re: Ure Westall, 1939 Register
« on: Sunday 14 December 25 09:01 GMT (UK)  »
The heavily redacted page gives her Schedule number as 196/5, as does the earlier page.

Perhaps she was sent to Uncle Leonard as an evacuee, and the later pages are lists of all evacuees. Most of them for several pages are redacted, with different schedule numbers on the unredacted ones.

But official evacuees didn't usually stay with relatives, did they?

Margaret

6
Kent / Re: Ure Westall, 1939 Register
« on: Sunday 14 December 25 04:15 GMT (UK)  »
Thank you very much. How extraordinary! I don't know how I've missed that all these years. I have later records for Gertrude Westall, + John and Ure Jones at that address, I must have thought I'd seen enough.

Any ideas as to why she would be entered twice in 1939?

Thank you, Margaret


7
Kent / Ure Westall, 1939 Register
« on: Sunday 14 December 25 00:58 GMT (UK)  »
Ure Westall (transcribed as Una or Rose) born 1925 has recently been unredacted from 1939 Register and I am puzzled. She has 2 entries, one staying with her uncle and aunt, Leonard George and Evelyn Hyde, in Whitstable, Kent. Appears to indicate that she married 'Jones' and 'Maitland'. On the right page it says 'see page 21'.

On page 21 she appears again, along with nearly a page full of redacted names, this time indicating that she married 'Maitland'

Firstly, I am wondering why she appears twice.
Secondly, I know that she married Jones, and not Maitland - why would this be incorrect?

Hoping that somebody can give me some ideas.
Thank you in advance, Margaret

8
The Common Room / Re: Genealogy can potentially save lives
« on: Monday 10 March 25 08:52 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: Annie65115 on Sunday 09 March 25 19:06 GMT (UK)
I have high cholesterol, and although I haven't been tested for genetic factors, it looks likely - probably as a combination of genes that skip some generations and not others.

I had raised cholesterol, not known to be inherited. Maximum statins and fairly strict diet had a moderate effect, but not good enough.

I enrolled in a double blind trial for a new cholesterol lowering drug - because of side effects I believe/know that I am not on placebo.
My cholesterol has come down to normal levels, though still not optimal. I have slightly relaxed my diet!

The trial ends next year after 6 years, the drug is already being prescribed for those with familial raised cholesterol.

Worth seeing your GP about this.

Margaret

9
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Penketh Township Censuses 1821 and 1831
« on: Tuesday 30 July 24 16:26 BST (UK)  »
It is indeed a gold mine!
I photoed these years ago, copies of the documents were found in  Penketh Library, the originals were found in Penketh Chest, then transferred to Warrington library.

Warrington Library 
Call Number WMF80
Census returns for Penketh: 1821, 1831
Title Census returns for Penketh: 1821, 1831.
Contents Lists compiled for the 1821 and 1831, giving head of household, and number of persons, with age distribution etc.
Summary General microfilm 63
Local subject 19c, population, vital statistics, name lists, genealogical sources, Warrington districts

Margaret

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 181