Author Topic: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)  (Read 47585 times)

Offline groom

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,147
  • Me aged 3. Tidied up thanks to Wiggy.
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« Reply #63 on: Thursday 05 November 15 01:06 GMT (UK) »
What does it say on the transcription of William? If there are people on there that are still closed one could be her as she was born after 1915 and died after 1991.


Sorry, ReadyDale, missed your answer!
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline MattD30

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,749
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« Reply #64 on: Thursday 05 November 15 01:42 GMT (UK) »
Hi

Thanks to both of you for the answers. I suspect she may be down as one of the closed entries but I have her death certificate so if I can pin her down I should be able to get her opened (so to speak). The only issue is that no results are shown using any known name combination for her. Does the resister cover Scotland? 

With regards to my grandfather there are two possible candidates. There is a a William J Donovan born 1907 living in the Orpington district with someone else, and there is the William in Stepney.  This second William was found by just entering his name and day and month of birth (04 04).

It is also possible that my grandmother might have been staying with her sister Doris Hewer and brother in law James. When my nan married in 1937 she gave her address as 24 Bigland Street, Stepney. This was where her sister Doris Hewer and brother in law James Francis Hewer lived. I have the Hewer family living at that address on electoral registers for several years. When I looked up 24 Bigland street in the register, Doris and James are still there. There are also 3 other people (I think) plus one closed record. If the William in Stepney is mine, then it may be that Constance is here with the Hewer family.

Offline MattD30

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,749
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« Reply #65 on: Thursday 05 November 15 01:45 GMT (UK) »
PS

I don't have a subscription to Findmypast and don't want to keep paying for credits or take a subscription out. Is it possible to view these somewhere for free such as TNA, the library, or Society of Genealogists?

Offline loo

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,345
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« Reply #66 on: Thursday 05 November 15 06:37 GMT (UK) »
So glad to see an active forum on this topic.  I have emailed Find My Past with a question but await an answer.

I had such high hopes to answer some questions - but to no avail. I have my grandfather and his German wife, both born before 1914, yet they don't appear on the register.  They had three children at that time, so I find it odd they risked not having a ration card.

Would family of registered aliens (if indeed she was registered) appear on a different list?

Names are George Henry Moore & Senta Moore expected to find them in either Kingston upon Hull or Ripon or Harrogate.

(For those who have found bits of streets missing:  I have found that if you use the references for those bit of the streets that do appear, and just search on the reference, you will found how parts of streets are often indexed differently)

During WW1, married women were understood by the British gov't to have a primary loyalty to their husbands. Thus, if a British woman married a German, she acquired his status as an alien. "Love, honour, and obey."

Most of the Germans in Britain at that time were either men, or women married to Germans.  German women married to Brits were not common and I'm not sure how their status was defined, but it would seem, logically, that they would have been seen as non-threatening because they were deemed to be under the influence of their husbands.

I'm not sure how this worked out in WW2, but it is some background info.

ARMSTRONG - Castleton Scot; NB; Westminstr Twp
BARFIELD - Nailsea
BRAKE - Nailsea
BURIATTE
CANDY - M'sex, Deptford
CLIFFORD - Maidstone
DURE(E) - France, Devon, Canada
HALLS - Chigwell
KREIN, Peter/Adam - Germany
LEOPOLD - Hanover, London
LATTIMER, MAXWELL - Ldn lightermen
MEYER - Lauenstein
MURRAY - Scot borders
STEWART - Chelsea; Reach
SWANICK - Mayo & Roscommon; Ontario
WEST - Rochester & Maidstone
WILLIS - Wilts, Berks, Hants, London
WOODHOUSE - Bristol tobacconist, London
WW1 internees


Offline carol8353

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 17,603
  • Me,mum and dad and both gran's c 1955
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« Reply #67 on: Thursday 05 November 15 08:12 GMT (UK) »
Hi Carol

The Register was a working document and was updated until c1991. In theory if a person died the letter "D" was recorded on the Register and that is what Findmypast would have used to unredact a person who was born less than 100 years ago. Whilst no doubt some errors would have been made by Findmypast in transcribing the records I suspect the majority of the issues people have raised relate to the accuracy of the updates made by civil servants over the 50 year period. Where they advised a person was deceased? Was it recorded against the correct period? Without actually seeing that part of the record we really don't know.

Andy

Andy what I am saying is that he is down on the register with the wrong birth year,and he died in London in 1978 rather than up north,so how did they tie the two people up,when my mum gave the correct date of birth for her younger brother ?

Carol
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline BumbleB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,687
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« Reply #68 on: Thursday 05 November 15 08:14 GMT (UK) »
MattD30 - I believe that they can be viewed for free at TNA.  I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Transcriptions and NBI are merely finding aids.  They are NOT a substitute for original record entries.
Remember - "They'll be found when they want to be found" !!!
If you don't ask the question, you won't get an answer.
He/she who never made a mistake, never made anything.
Archbell - anywhere, any date
Kendall - WRY
Milner - WRY
Appleyard - WRY

Offline KGarrad

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,716
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« Reply #69 on: Thursday 05 November 15 08:40 GMT (UK) »
During WW1, married women were understood by the British gov't to have a primary loyalty to their husbands. Thus, if a British woman married a German, she acquired his status as an alien. "Love, honour, and obey."

Most of the Germans in Britain at that time were either men, or women married to Germans.  German women married to Brits were not common and I'm not sure how their status was defined, but it would seem, logically, that they would have been seen as non-threatening because they were deemed to be under the influence of their husbands.

I'm not sure how this worked out in WW2, but it is some background info.

The Convention on the Nationality of Married Women was not passed by the UN until 1957 - and has still not been ratified by the UK!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Nationality_of_Married_Women

Before 1870 a British woman retained her nationality when she married an alien, though twenty-six years previously, in 1844, alien women marrying British subjects had been granted British nationality. The 1870 Naturalisation Act, to regularise the position, took away British nationality from women marrying foreigners.
This remained the position until after WW2
Garrad (Suffolk, Essex, Somerset), Crocker (Somerset), Vanstone (Devon, Jersey), Sims (Wiltshire), Bridger (Kent)

Offline andycand

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,384
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« Reply #70 on: Thursday 05 November 15 09:11 GMT (UK) »
Hi Carol

The Register was a working document and was updated until c1991. In theory if a person died the letter "D" was recorded on the Register and that is what Findmypast would have used to unredact a person who was born less than 100 years ago. Whilst no doubt some errors would have been made by Findmypast in transcribing the records I suspect the majority of the issues people have raised relate to the accuracy of the updates made by civil servants over the 50 year period. Where they advised a person was deceased? Was it recorded against the correct period? Without actually seeing that part of the record we really don't know.

Andy

Andy what I am saying is that he is down on the register with the wrong birth year,and he died in London in 1978 rather than up north,so how did they tie the two people up,when my mum gave the correct date of birth for her younger brother ?

Carol

I'm not familiar with the process in the UK but I would think that other Government Departments such as the NHS and/or whoever handles National Insurance would be advised of a persons death perhaps by the Medical Practitioner who certified the death.

Andy 

Offline groom

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,147
  • Me aged 3. Tidied up thanks to Wiggy.
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register up and running (Part 2)
« Reply #71 on: Thursday 05 November 15 09:17 GMT (UK) »
Well, I received an acknowledgement from FindMyPast re my query about records missing from a section of a road and today received their answer. It is obviously a standard reply, as it is the same as one quoted either here on on an earlier thread and doesn't address my specific question, but tries to fob me off suggesting I may not be searching correctly.

I have now sent another email and will await that reply.

I know they must be inundated with queries, but I would have preferred them to answer saying that yes there were missing records from the scan and that they were trying to rectify it, instead of them almost blaming me for not using it properly.
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk