1939 - what have you found?

[rosie99]

Thanks BumbleB

That's what I thought, the name in brackets was surname at time of register being compiled.

Rosie

[Sloe Gin]

Does anyone know how consistent they were with updating to add married names? 
If a young unmarried woman has had no new surname added, can we conclude that she did not marry?  or maybe emigrated and never came under the NHS system.

[Mean_genie]

You can only conclude that the Register was not informed of a name change. It is most likely that the person did not marry, but the other possibilities are; that the person did not notify their doctor of their name change; the doctor did not pass the information on to the NHS Register; she married but did not change her name; she moved out of England and Wales. Up to 1952 when National Registration was still in force it was a legal requirement to notify all changes of name or address, after that is was just another bit of admin. So you can expect the information in the Register to be pretty accurate up to 1952, rather less so after then. I have seen the record of a woman who married in 1944, showing her new surname, but she married again in 1958, and the new name does not appear. 

[Connie Sparrow]

I thought Maiden names are only given when that was their surname at the time of the register (1939). 

I have one lady (although her husband would question that description!) who had only her first married name and her second married name, no maiden name.  There's lass who has her married name in brackets and her maiden name not, another lass with her maiden name in brackets and her married name not.  It seems totally haphazard.

Some ladies have no married name, but I know they married.  Some of those I know about because I knew the couple myself, some via marriage certs, some via the GRO index.

If humans can misunderstand a form, they will. Add into that equation a World War and it's small wonder the records aren't as perfect as we'd like.

[Connie Sparrow]

Does anyone know how consistent they were with updating to add married names? 
If a young unmarried woman has had no new surname added, can we conclude that she did not marry?  or maybe emigrated and never came under the NHS system.

No, you can't conclude she didn't.  If she was young, there's a good chance she was in the NHS system from birth. So check the GRO index, that could tell you if she married, but the marriage may not be where expected. Look through the emigration records. If she's not there, she may have married in Scotland. Look at the probate calendar for a will for her parents and siblings, to see if she's an executrix (I've found a few marriages that way). Finally look for a death for her from the time she was included in the National Register onwards.

After all that, she may have lived with her man as though married but without having a little piece of paper saying so.

[Guy Etchells]

No, you can't conclude she didn't.  If she was young, there's a good chance she was in the NHS system from birth. So check the GRO index, that could tell you if she married, but the marriage may not be where expected. Look through the emigration records. If she's not there, she may have married in Scotland. Look at the probate calendar for a will for her parents and siblings, to see if she's an executrix (I've found a few marriages that way). Finally look for a death for her from the time she was included in the National Register onwards.

After all that, she may have lived with her man as though married but without having a little piece of paper saying so.

If she was young enough to come under the NHS system from birth she will not appear on the 1939 Register the NHS did not start until 1948 and the available register was taken in 1939.
Anyone born after that would be on the later register which is not available.

If she was living in England & Wales at the time of the 1939 Register and married in Scotland at a later date the England & Wales register should have been updated with her new married name.
My mother who was married and living in England at the time of the 1939 Register is shown under her 1st married name (married 1938) which has been amended with the addition of her second married name. Her second marriage was in Scotland on 21 Oct 1946 and the date of the amendment 25 Nov 1946 (25/11/46).
My brother's entry (by my mum's first marriage) shows his name change in 7 December 1957. I can only assume this was when he registered at a new doctor's surgery in Edinburgh when he went up to university as he did not formally change his name, but changed it by use after her second marriage.

Do not forget systems were far more relaxed in those days, identity was more about recognising people (patients) by sight and many people only visited a doctor occasionally. Many were used to having to pay for medical treatment and so did not visit a doctor for years at a time.
If a doctor knew the person in the community rather than as their doctor he/she may not think to amend ther medical notes, I believe this to be the case with my brother as we lived in a village where everyone knew everyone else by sight.

Cheers
Guy

PS My brother's record is open as though he was born in England in time for the 1939 Register (13 Sep 1939) he drowned in Scotland in 1958.

[barryd]

I am doing quite well with my Ceylon names. Quite a few of them have at least one English census with birthplaces in Ceylon and  to name a few places Galle, Ceylon, Colombo, Ceylon, or my favourite Nuwara Eliya, Ceylon birth places. Records in Ceylon are very sporadic so the 1939 Index has helped me immensely for those who happen to be in England in 1939.   

[clairec666]

Does anyone know how consistent they were with updating to add married names? 
If a young unmarried woman has had no new surname added, can we conclude that she did not marry?  or maybe emigrated and never came under the NHS system.

I've found two women so far who I'm 99% sure got married after 1939, yet only their maiden name appears on the register. I've double-checked everything, and I can only conclude that a name change was never recorded, or not transcribed (I've not purchased the images for these records)

[ScouseBoy]

I thought Maiden names are only given when that was their surname at the time of the register (1939). 

I have one lady (although her husband would question that description!) who had only her first married name and her second married name, no maiden name.  There's lass who has her married name in brackets and her maiden name not, another lass with her maiden name in brackets and her married name not.  It seems totally haphazard.

Some ladies have no married name, but I know they married.  Some of those I know about because I knew the couple myself, some via marriage certs, some via the GRO index.

If humans can misunderstand a form, they will. Add into that equation a World War and it's small wonder the records aren't as perfect as we'd like.

I believe that marital status for women was an important consideration later in the war when the Department of Labour was directing women to work in factories, or to be conscripted.