1939 - what have you found?

[3sillydogs]

Ah that could be the answer to that one

Still the birth year a discrepancy of 9 years is a large one,  ???will have to check into that but would have made her only 34 and not 43 when child was born.

[StevieSteve]

Discrepancies of multiples of 9 always ring alarm bells that the figures have been transposed eg 34 & 43, 23 & 32, 27 & 72 etc.

[venelow]

I found a little mystery. My great aunt was using a surname that she did not acquire legally until she married her second husband nine years later. However husband number two was listed living somewhere else with some unrelated people.
Her mother is living with her and also someone whose details are still closed. Not either of her children that I know of as I found them in other places.
Great aunt's first husband's name is in brackets after the name she was using. Maybe added when she died?
Venelow

[clairec666]

Venelow - the name in brackets is the name she was using in 1939, and the main surname given for her is the one that was added later. A little confusing - the 1939 register is supposed to be a snapshot of people in 1939, so I would prefer it if the later names were put in brackets.... maybe a change FindMyPast could make to avoid confusion?

[venelow]

Hi Clairec

Thanks for that clarification. Yes it is confusing and seems to go against logic.

I have not unlocked any households as I can identify most of my relatives from that era. I wonder how many people are buying? I have just received a special time limited offer but I won't be taking it up as Great Aunt's first husband is not living with her and he's the chap I really wanted to know about.

Thanks again
Venelow
Canada

[Guy Etchells]

Hi Clairec

Thanks for that clarification. Yes it is confusing and seems to go against logic.

I have not unlocked any households as I can identify most of my relatives from that era. I wonder how many people are buying? I have just received a special time limited offer but I won't be taking it up as Great Aunt's first husband is not living with her and he's the chap I really wanted to know about.

Thanks again
Venelow
Canada

Not against logic when you think what the register was used for it was used by the NHS to track living people therefore the current name was the important name.
There is no confusion when the image is viewed as later additions & changes are obvious.

The image is also useful where a woman has married for a second time after 1939 as both married names are shown.
Cheers
Guy

[carol8353]

The image is also useful where a woman has married for a second time after 1939 as both married names are shown.
Cheers
Guy

My mum is one of those who married twice,to my dad in 1948,he died in 1970,and then again in 1973.
So now I've managed to unlock her entry I can see all 3 of her names,and a few dates and letters alongside which I'm still trying to work out. Her younger brother is listed with the wrong year of birth,1936 instead of the correct one of 1933,although that date in Feb is correct.

[ScouseBoy]

But what about the situation were a woman got divorced, but continued to use her married name,  but then many years later reverted back to her maiden name?

[Guy Etchells]

But what about the situation were a woman got divorced, but continued to use her married name,  but then many years later reverted back to her maiden name?

That would depend on what amendments the NHS added to the register. The divorce date may have been added as the woman would no longer be covered by her ex-husbabd's National Insurance contributions.
If she informed the NHS when she reverted back to her maiden name that mught have been recorded. Such amendments were all down to the individuals updating the register.

Cheers
Guy