Author Topic: 1939 National Register??  (Read 66173 times)

Offline KGarrad

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,807
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 National Register??
« Reply #108 on: Tuesday 27 October 15 10:22 GMT (UK) »
So you are claiming that Mr. Macleod (the Minister of Health) intentionally lied to Parliament on 21 May 1953

He was a politician! Of course he lied! ;D ;D

"How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving!"
Garrad (Suffolk, Essex, Somerset), Crocker (Somerset), Vanstone (Devon, Jersey), Sims (Wiltshire), Bridger (Kent)

Offline Guy Etchells

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 4,632
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 National Register??
« Reply #109 on: Tuesday 27 October 15 15:21 GMT (UK) »
If it is the case that successive politicians have been lying about the 1939 National Registration it is about time something was done to rectify the situation.

It was not just in 1953 (HC Deb 21 May 1953 vol 515 cc2233-4 which I quoted previously) that MPs claimed the National Register was no longer in use

HC Deb 04 April 1955 vol 539 cc823-4

“Mr. Hynd
I am not asking about National Health Service numbers. I am asking about the national registration numbers which are asked for when application is made for service under the National Health Scheme. Is it not ridiculous that people should still be asked for the national registration numbers, which most of them do not know? Does the hon. Lady know her own national registration number?
§ Miss Hornsby-Smith
CMBR 53/1. I think the hon. Gentleman will recognise that no sizeable registration scheme with so many people bearing the same name could possibly be carried out without some method using numbers. In the case of the National Health Service, it was obviously the better solution to take the national registration numbers, which were available and were known to most people, who had borne them for 10 years, rather than institute an entirely new Health Service scheme.
snip
Miss Hornsby-Smith
If the hon. Gentleman will cast his mind back, he will remember that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House most emphatically in this House enjoined people when the national identity card system came to an end that the numbers would apply to the National Health Service.
§ Mr. H. Morrison
Can the hon. Lady really deal with this? Was it not the case that the country was given the impression that it was a great act of virtue on the part of the Government to abolish the national registration numbers, that it was, so to speak, an act of setting the people free, but is it not the case now that we are told that people should not have been set free and that they should remember their registration numbers? Are they not now landed with two numbers, the registration number and the National Health number, and will they not get into a state of confusion?
§ Miss Hornsby-Smith
The right hon. Gentleman—it is unusual for him, I must confess—is more than ever confused about this matter. It was due to the practical application of common sense by this Government that, instead of instituting a new series of registration numbers for the National Health Service, we applied the national registration numbers.
HC Deb 09 March 1956 vol 549 c231W 231W
§ Mr. Neal
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been drawn to the compulsory use of the now obsolete National Registration identity card numbers in connection with claims for dental treatment: and if he will substitute a more appropriate code occasioning less inconvenience to the dentists and the general public.
§ Mr. Turton
When the abolition of National Registration was announced on the 21st February, 1952, it was explained in this House that National Registration numbers were being taken over as National Health Service numbers as a matter of convenience in order to save the labour and expense of introducing an alternative code."

As can be seen parliament was time and again over many years told that only the National Registration numbers were being used by the National Health Service and that the National Registration has been abolished.

I could go on but why bother, it should be online next month.
Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

Offline MagicMirror

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 National Register??
« Reply #110 on: Tuesday 27 October 15 15:24 GMT (UK) »
A email just dropped into my inbox with the date:

Monday 2nd November

And the price :

Quote
Records will be available to purchase for £6.95 per household or £24.95 for our 5 household bundle (£4.99 per household).

 :-\

I'm being promised a coupon for 25% off the 5 household bundle for being a subscriber and a 10% off coupon for having signed up for the email early.

Offline smudwhisk

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,866
  • Whiskey (1997-2018)
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 National Register??
« Reply #111 on: Tuesday 27 October 15 15:35 GMT (UK) »
According to the same email, if you are an existing subscriber they will send you an extra email with a code for 25% off the five household bundle.

I appreciate its much cheaper than the previous fee and I suppose its just like the launch of the 1911 Census, but I think I shall be waiting until the prices drop or a subscription option is added, which I suspect will happen at some point. :-[
(KENT) Lingwell, Rayment (BUCKS) Read, Hutchins (SRY) Costin, Westbrook (DOR) Gibbs, Goreing (DUR) Green (ESX) Rudland, Malden, Rouse, Boosey (FIFE) Foulis, Russell (NFK) Johnson, Farthing, Purdy, Barsham (GLOS) Collett, Morris, Freebury, May, Kirkman (HERTS) Winchester, Linford (NORTHANTS) Bird, Brimley, Chater, Wilford, Read, Chapman, Jeys, Marston, Lumley (WILTS) Arden, Whatley, Batson, Gleed, Greenhill (SOM) Coombs, Watkins (RUT) Stafford (BERKS) Sansom, Angel, Young, Stratton, Weeks, Day


Offline MagicMirror

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 93
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 National Register??
« Reply #112 on: Tuesday 27 October 15 15:41 GMT (UK) »
I can't work out if it's one coupon for one bundle or if the discount will apply as many times as you want. I'd like to get all my grandparents and great grandparents (and one great great who was still alive). Anyone else will have to wait.


Offline rebeccaclaire86

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • I'm not stuck, I'm ancestrally challenged...
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 National Register??
« Reply #113 on: Tuesday 27 October 15 15:55 GMT (UK) »
I'm pleased we finally have a release date, but a bit :o at the price!  If I just wanted to look up just my direct ancestors on the 1939 that involves checking 14 different households, I just counted.  Looks like it will end up being quite costly!
Buckinghamshire; Bignell, Talbot, Janes, Gibbs
Cambrigeshire; Cockerton, Sharpe, Purkis
Hertfordshire; Rolph, Bigg, Marvell, Pateman, Hornsby, Jenkins
Norfolk; Crowfoot, Randlesome
London; Wyatt, Yarroll
Somerset; Date, Hodder, Leatherby, Webb
Suffolk; Palfrey, Yallop, Kerry, Codling, Steward, Pettitt
Ireland & Canada; Hanna, Teel, Cowin, Switzer

Offline Christine53

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,987
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 National Register??
« Reply #114 on: Tuesday 27 October 15 16:03 GMT (UK) »
According to the same email, if you are an existing subscriber they will send you an extra email with a code for 25% off the five household bundle.


My email only mentions the 10% off and I'm a subscriber. I'm not sure how worthwhile this is going to be , given that individuals born less than 100 years ago cannot be viewed. It would be very annoying to pay for a record and find most of it redacted !
Census information  Crown Copyright
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline smudwhisk

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,866
  • Whiskey (1997-2018)
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 National Register??
« Reply #115 on: Tuesday 27 October 15 16:06 GMT (UK) »
I can't work out if it's one coupon for one bundle or if the discount will apply as many times as you want. I'd like to get all my grandparents and great grandparents (and one great great who was still alive). Anyone else will have to wait.

Yes I was wondering that too.  I suspect it'll turn out to be able to be used just once, although it may be that you can purchase more than one bundle at a time, but that would become very expensive.

The prices are those they charge for pay as you go credits.  I've some left which would mean I could view two households, but I've been using them to obtain copies of NSW Wills when I come across them.  Not sure I want to use them all up on the 1939 Register, although I would like to get my Great Uncle's because he's the only one my grandmother didn't have a note of the birthdate for and I suppose its cheaper than getting his certificate.  Unfortunately he died well before the time they started entering birth dates on the death index.
(KENT) Lingwell, Rayment (BUCKS) Read, Hutchins (SRY) Costin, Westbrook (DOR) Gibbs, Goreing (DUR) Green (ESX) Rudland, Malden, Rouse, Boosey (FIFE) Foulis, Russell (NFK) Johnson, Farthing, Purdy, Barsham (GLOS) Collett, Morris, Freebury, May, Kirkman (HERTS) Winchester, Linford (NORTHANTS) Bird, Brimley, Chater, Wilford, Read, Chapman, Jeys, Marston, Lumley (WILTS) Arden, Whatley, Batson, Gleed, Greenhill (SOM) Coombs, Watkins (RUT) Stafford (BERKS) Sansom, Angel, Young, Stratton, Weeks, Day

Offline smudwhisk

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,866
  • Whiskey (1997-2018)
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 National Register??
« Reply #116 on: Tuesday 27 October 15 16:08 GMT (UK) »
According to the same email, if you are an existing subscriber they will send you an extra email with a code for 25% off the five household bundle.


My email only mentions the 10% off and I'm a subscriber. I'm not sure how worthwhile this is going to be , given that individuals born less than 100 years ago cannot be viewed. It would be very annoying to pay for a record and find most of it redacted !

I've now had two emails, one mentions 10% off and the other 25%.  I think the 10% email is for those who signed up to be notified and the other is going to FindMyPast subscribers, although I stand corrected but it may just be a lag in emails being sent.
(KENT) Lingwell, Rayment (BUCKS) Read, Hutchins (SRY) Costin, Westbrook (DOR) Gibbs, Goreing (DUR) Green (ESX) Rudland, Malden, Rouse, Boosey (FIFE) Foulis, Russell (NFK) Johnson, Farthing, Purdy, Barsham (GLOS) Collett, Morris, Freebury, May, Kirkman (HERTS) Winchester, Linford (NORTHANTS) Bird, Brimley, Chater, Wilford, Read, Chapman, Jeys, Marston, Lumley (WILTS) Arden, Whatley, Batson, Gleed, Greenhill (SOM) Coombs, Watkins (RUT) Stafford (BERKS) Sansom, Angel, Young, Stratton, Weeks, Day