1939 - what have you found?

[jillruss]

I'd more or less given up on the 1939 register as it had proved such a disappointment. I found next to nobody!

For some reason, today I decided to have another try - perhaps it was the £3.48 offer (which, incidentally, is not just a one off. I've used it 4 times today)!

I have found 4 records that I couldn't find previously. I have my moments but I'm not so daft that I could have previously missed the lot! So, the FindMyPast workers must be adding and correcting as we speak! That's the good news...

.. The bad news is :
1. For two of the records, the transcription gave details of the people I was looking for (with a few redacted entries, of course). However, when I went to view the original record - the whole page was redacted!! Honestly! Just a sea of black!!!! I have, of course, 'chatted' online to the FindMyPast bods about these records and - guess what - they've been referred back to the technical team! AGAIN! I had queried one of them 6 weeks ago and never had a reply (other then the 'refer to technical people' standard song-sheet). They hadn't even had the decency to let me know they'd found it (except, they hadn't.....). So, another 6 weeks wait?
2. When you can get to see something other than black on the images, the transcriptions don't necessarily match the reality! So, a word of advice - if you expect to find someone with their family but they're not included on the transcription page, don't be put off. They may well still be there on the original!
3. One of the transcriptions (one with a blacked out original) had my 3 relatives living at one address with another couple who, when I looked on the 1939 electoral roll, lived in a completely different area!

Sorry about all the exclamation marks but I find I can't compose a post about FindMyPast without using rather a lot of them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Blue70]

I'd more or less given up on the 1939 register as it had proved such a disappointment. I found next to nobody!

For some reason, today I decided to have another try - perhaps it was the £3.48 offer (which, incidentally, is not just a one off. I've used it 4 times today)!

Yes I said as much about using it more than once on that link I posted here's my post:-

"I used the code (X2UL38W4) seven separate times today to get seven records at £3.48 each. You have to apply the code each time you purchase. I did say during discussions on here I would invest in these records at some point around Christmas and £3.48 was the sort of charge for each record that I suggested a while back. If they had been that price from the start I would have bought them straight away. It's a pity they will only remain that price for a period of time."


Blue

[DudleyWinchurch]

Hi jillruss,

I've been finding much as you.

Mistranscriptions of clear writing as someone obviously thought they knew better.

Anyone looking for the Backlog family (I know, sounds unlikely, but true, as corroborated elsewhere), needs to look for Buckloy!

and Norah A Fisher, a bit unclear, but does not excuse changing Noah's clearly marked sex from M to F as well, leaving a household with 6 females, the first two married!

Better news, they have today confirmed that they will unredact my mother's record, but still no news on what happens about the record that they charged for twice.

It could be a good resource, but they could probably correct it more quickly, if they (even partially)refunded credits to those who reported errors.

good luck with your searches!

[clairec666]

This week I've found several people who look like they've been recently opened... good signs!

The free preview page is a bit confusing though - for example if you look at the head of house it says "5 people closed" but 3 of them are now open.

[coombs]

Maybe I should have another look for William Jack Taylor then. Clairec666, you may be interested to know this man I am talking about is from our mutual ancestor John Lucking of Foulness who wed in 1752. So a relative of yours as well as mine. Trouble is, WJ Taylor was in Luton in 1921, but died in Sussex in 1978, he was a miller. I have been unable to find him anywhere even searching by DOB, and his wife's DOB etc.

[Connie Sparrow]

What have I found?

Amelia b 1866, d Q4 1939 - not in register
Ramon b 1926, d 1957 - not in register
Eric b 1928, d 1978 - not in register
Barry b 1936, d 1994 - IN register
Richard b 1937, d 1986 - IN register

That's probably only the tip of the iceberg of the missing too.

I've found Anna given as Hannah, wives given with a previous married name as their maiden name.

My Aunt Ellen is there and the preview shows my Uncle Jack "and one other" while "2 more people who are officially closed. The "one other" I know is my grandmother because I already have the details of this household from some 6 years ago. But try finding either my grandmother or uncle!!  My aunt and uncle didn't have any children so who one of the "officially closed" is I don't know.  The other is my mother.

Other than that, I've found nothing I didn't know already - penalty of doing a one name study!
 
I'm pleased for those who've found people in the 1939 National Registration but for me it's a major disappointment bordering on a disaster.

Still, I'm young enough to be able to wait until 2040 when the names of everyone included in the National Registration will be released.  In the meantime, I'm looking forward to 4 Jan 2022 and the official release of the 1921 census

[rosie99]

wives given with a previous married name as their maiden name.

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

[BumbleB]

Researching the name "Archbell" I have 4 instances

Archbell (Thompson) - maiden name Thompson, marries Archbell 1942
Beecroft (Archbell) - 1939 is already married to Archbell - later married to Beecroft 19??
Mason (Archbell) -  maiden name Archbell, married Mason 1945
Seagrave (Archbell) -  widow's name Archbell, married Seagrave 1959

So looks like the name in brackets is the maiden or former surname of the lady concerned 

[coombs]

My nan is down as Connie Musgrave (Cornwell) in brackets, she married a year after the register, she wed in August 1940. I think they updated the register and did keep track on the people. That explains why they know death dates and redacted anyone under 100 still alive or anyone born after 1915 but died after 1991.