1939 Register up and running (Part 2)

[Guy Etchells]

I've just viewed the entry for my father (redacted) and my grandparents and cannot understand the numbering. The page reads as follows:

House no 53 schedule 115  1 Grandfather
Entry closed
                                        2 Grandmother
Entry closed
Entry closed
Entry closed
                                         4 A.N Other
House no 57 schedule 116.  1 Individual no 1
                                         2 Individual no 2

Can anyone explain this? All the other couples on the page seem to be be 1&2 with children redacted, but in this case someone (? possibly my father) comes between my grandparents. Also, house number 55 is either missing or the schedule number has been missed. Sadly, without seeing the whole thing, I may never know. I have applied for the opening of my father's entry, so I may be able to clarify the first point

Steve

He/she could be a child of theirs.
I have the same problem with the image I have put on line at http://www.rootschat.com/links/01eoz/ if you
scroll to the foot of the page the image is there.
At house number 60 are my grandparents with a redacted person between them.
I think that person is my uncle John Percy Hugh Guy who was killed in action 29 Sep 1944. In approximately the right position on the image there is the bottom loop of the name John. If one scrolls across to the right hand page it seems to say something cadet. JPH Guy was at Oxford in 39 could he have been a cadet? He must have joined up around that time as on Sunday, 14th April. 1940 he was on HMS Orion waiting to be shipped to Norway as part of the Norwegian campaign.

Cheers
Guy

[JonathanC]

Its the quality of the NHS database as at 1991 that is the major issue.  My current experience (albeit based on one household) is that it is 33% accurate, so 67% inaccurate in respect of people born after 1915 who died prior to 1991, dying in England.  Updating by cross referencing against (for example) FreeBMD may be possible, but how many John Smiths die each year.  My father, born 1926, died in 1976 in England, death cert issued, but still seems to have been listed on the register in 1991.  His brother born 1930, died in 1980 in England, death cert issued, likewise.

[clairec666]

Guy - I'm guessing in your grandparents' house the men were listed first then the women, which is why your uncle possibly appears in between his parents. Not sure how common this is... I've seen it a few times in the 1911 census, whereas most families listed by age.
This could be the same for the household Old Bristolian is looking at, therefore the first closed entry could be a son born after 1915, and the others could be daughters.
Just a guess...

[Old Bristolian]

Thanks Guy & Claire,

I'm sure the first redacted entry must be my father, with the males in the household listed first. I have asked for the entry to be opened and have supplied the death cert. The next three (redacted) entries would appear to be the house next door (no. 55), as the following entry has the individual as no. 4 in the household - certainly my grandparents only had one child.

What puzzles me are the schedule numbers which do not allow a household between 53 and 57. I wonder why FindMyPast have blanked out the whole line, including addresses and not just the personal details

Steve

[coombs]

I did have to check my tree to see any ancestors or their siblings who were still alive in 1939 so I can look them up. It is like a 1939 census.

[Guy Etchells]

Guy - I'm guessing in your grandparents' house the men were listed first then the women, which is why your uncle possibly appears in between his parents. Not sure how common this is... I've seen it a few times in the 1911 census, whereas most families listed by age.
This could be the same for the household Old Bristolian is looking at, therefore the first closed entry could be a son born after 1915, and the others could be daughters.
Just a guess...

I don't know on the 1911 census he has given the servants first, Gardener, Cook (gardener's wife), housemaid (16 years old), visitor (later to be his wife) then himself missing out his second christian name.
I assume he possibly thought he was not going to be there on the night of the census and filled in the first three then added the last two names before returning the schedule.
But that is only a wild guess.

However as he was still married to his first wife (they never divorced and he had 4 children by his second wife before they finally married in 1934 (12 years after the birth of their 4th and final child and almost a year after the death of his 1st wife) it is not really surprising.

Cheers
Guy

[ShaunJ]

Latest advice from FindMyPast re the missing stretch of Caithness Drive, Crosby:

"Thank you for your interest in the 1939 register.

I was sorry to hear that you were unable to find the record you were looking for.

The street may not have been taken in order, for example odd numbers may have been taken first as the enumerator moved up on side of the street.

The most likely cause for a side of a street not at first appearing, will be an error in the transcription. If you are searching for a particular street and are unable to find it you may need to be flexible in the search terms that you use.

"I would suggested searching through Crosby MB results in order to find the records.

The records will not be missing however they may have been mis-transcribed and are there, but showing as a wrongly named street.

You can used the reference to search for missing streets too, however the records after 44 may appear in a following item number.

I do hope this has helped, please contact us again should you have any other queries."

I've replied along the lines of "That wouldn't explain why the inhabitants of the missing houses in Caithness Drive, Crosby (4729i/007) are also missing from your names index. " I've given them the names of householders from the 1938 directory and some examples of residence there continuing until long after the war.

[groom]

The records will not be missing however they may have been mis-transcribed and are there, but showing as a wrongly named street.

That's quite a sweeping statement isn't it? I have the same problem, a section of the street where my grandparents lived is missing. I've also searched using their names and the names of their neighbours  who I know should also be there. I've received the same standard reply from FindMyPast twice, which makes me think they are not reading emails properly and answering them individually.

[ShaunJ]

To be honest I wasn't expecting much more than unhelpful standard replies from FindMyPast but it would be nice to think that someone there would read the information I am sending and take a look themselves. After all they are in a position to page through the images in their database - we are not.