The 1939 Register

[Tony]

Today brought further emails from FMP, with an addition to the pricing structure in the form of a 15 household package.

• Records are £6.95 per household, £24.95 for 5 households (£4.99 each) or £54.95 (£3.66 each) in our best value 15 household package
• With your exclusive 10% discount, you’ll get the 5 household bundle for £18.71 (£3.74 each)

Now does anyone else notice something odd here? My arithmetic says that 18.71/24.95=0.75 near enough, which I would call a 25% discount. So where does 10% discount come from??

 

[uncle024]

Today brought further emails from FMP, with an addition to the pricing structure in the form of a 15 household package.

• Records are £6.95 per household, £24.95 for 5 households (£4.99 each) or £54.95 (£3.66 each) in our best value 15 household package
• With your exclusive 10% discount, you’ll get the 5 household bundle for £18.71 (£3.74 each)

Now does anyone else notice something odd here? My arithmetic says that 18.71/24.95=0.75 near enough, which I would call a 25% discount. So where does 10% discount come from??

Your maths is just fine! They are also doing a 25% discount. I got on Thursday two emails one for 10% another for 25% both a once only code.

 

[emjay]

I've had emails with 'euro' costings as well as £s

 

[Bob Spiers]

I've had 'euro' costings version emails also

Nothing in Welsh?

 

[emjay]

Nothing in Welsh?

I would not be able to understand. However in Wales we do use *Genuine English Pounds*

*Term used by Bob Mortimer in spoof tv Quiz show

 

[Katie Bee]

I had a transcription error on my parent's address. The transcriber chopped the road name in half as the first part was faded and unclear!

The house was on a corner and the schedules go along the main road and then round the corner and into the side street. They do not keep going along the main road.

 

[peter]

The house was on a corner and the schedules go along the main road and then round the corner and into the side street. They do not keep going along the main road.

I would imagine that, as with the censuses, it was up to the enumerator to pick his own route. Also some main roads would have been split between multiple EDs.

 

[jorghes]

I have a very curious transcription error - I looked up my grandmother, who would have been 100 this year had she not died in the 1960s, so would be present on the roll. They brought up her name, with an incorrect surname (presumably after she and my grandfather emigrated in the 1940s, they "associated" my grandmother with someone else) - because of this, I looked at the proper image to see if the error was there too...

and there I found another error -the placement of the black censor lines was badly done (leaving some information blacked out for people it should have been left open simply because the censor lines weren't straight, but the angle was too great for the bend in this particular page), but to make matters worse, my grandmother was blacked out! Left open to vision instead was her younger half sister, born about 6 years later (she has also died) but under their rules she should not have been visible and my grandmother should have been.

I'm not sure if I should make FindMyPast aware of this - I don't have the necessary proof of my great-aunt's death since I have been focussing on getting notices for the closer of my relations, but it is still incorrect in that my grandmother is not present, "un-blacked out" on their image, although she's searchable on their database!

 

[peter]

I have a very curious transcription error - I looked up my grandmother, who would have been 100 this year had she not died in the 1960s, so would be present on the roll. They brought up her name, with an incorrect surname (presumably after she and my grandfather emigrated in the 1940s, they "associated" my grandmother with someone else) - because of this, I looked at the proper image to see if the error was there too...

That's not a transcription error, surely? It does the transcribers a disservice if we refer to every mistake as a transcription error.

Because I'm conscious of the fact that I couldn't do the job - and nor could most other people - I'm very protective of enumerators, even though this sometimes leads to me falling out with LostCousins members who have a bee in their bonnet.

and there I found another error -the placement of the black censor lines was badly done (leaving some information blacked out for people it should have been left open simply because the censor lines weren't straight, but the angle was too great for the bend in this particular page), but to make matters worse, my grandmother was blacked out! Left open to vision instead was her younger half sister, born about 6 years later (she has also died) but under their rules she should not have been visible and my grandmother should have been.

Because the registers were large books, as you can see in the video on the FMP blog, there was often some curvature when they were scanned - this seems to be worse towards the end of the book. As a result information on occupation can sometimes be obscured when it shouldn't be, and open when it should be.

However the example you're referring to sounds worse than any I've seen.

You can ask for a record to be closed, just as you can ask for one to be opened. The record for my aunt was open because the year of birth appeared incorrectly in the register - it had been written as 16 but looked like 76 because of a careless mark in the same coloured ink (so again, not really a mistake by the transcriber). However as she died in 2010 I didn't submit an official report, though I did give all the facts when submitting a request for the transcription to be amended.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Despite my earlier misgivings, I have to admit curiosity has got the better of me and I have had a brief delve into the Register. I knew there would be gremlins in the works, and you only have to check the handwriting of the originals, quality of the archived Register and how OCR is known to produce some interesting interpretations (even with human intervention after the event) so errors will be (and are) inevitable. I found incorrect initials, and a mis-spelled maiden name, but one result turned out to be quite rewarding even if surprising, and nothing to do with mis-transcription.

My wife asked if I would check her father's record as she knew he broke up from his first wife sometime between 1938 & 1939 but there was no divorce until around 1942 granted because of her infidelity whilst he was away fighting in the war and he married my wife's mother in 1943. I could not find him but located his wife of the time and the way her surname was recorded gave my wife a deal of merriment. She was shown with 3 surnames in the transcript and we discovered how this came about, by checking the original.

She was first recorded in black ink with her married surname (A) which was scored through and then -in green ink with a date annotation of 1945 - shown as (B). This was also scored through also in green -but without an annotation - as (C). I quickly deduced the annotations were official adjustments to the Register throughout the war and perhaps beyond, borne out by the fact (B) was her surname from her second marriage in 1945. But -and here is where the merriment came in - I know from research she did not marry (C) until 1974 so how come she had his surname recorded in the 1939 Register? Therein lies the mystery and one can only presume she 'played the field' during wartime, so husband No. 2 was likely cast aside during that time also, and she adopted (C) as her surname even if only making it legal many years later.

So you see you can learn quite a lot from the Register even if only from your own interpretations, which makes for interesting research nevertheless. I am also puzzling about some 'sorry this entry is officially closed' redactions as to who some of them were?

I guess all will be revealed in time but my advice to those who find transcription errors to check the originals as a must; accept you may be wrong also, or if sure of your own facts, take the mis-transcriptions in your stride and accept it is par for the course in genealogical research.

 

[Marguerite]

That made for interesting reading, Bob. On Ancestry I put "transcription error" but often add a comment to the fact that the original document was very difficult to decipher.
On the 1939 Registration entries, there were far less mistakes in the German surnames than I found in the various census entries. Schwab and Schussler were transcripted correctly as well as names such as Pfeiffer, Goltenboth, Baier, Bauer (often transcribed as Baner) the German "u" regularly being taken for an "n".

One transcription error which I shall always treasure, was the occupation of one of my great uncles. The transcription read "retired Queer". He was actually a retired grocer and a very straitlaced gentleman at that.

The advanced search, especially the address, is extremely useful, for me anyway.

 

[peter]

OCR

I very much doubt that the registers were OCR'ed - handwriting is very difficult to interpret.

She was first recorded in black ink with her married surname (A) which was scored through and then -in green ink with a date annotation of 1945 - shown as (B). This was also scored through also in green -but without an annotation - as (C). I quickly deduced the annotations were official adjustments to the Register throughout the war and perhaps beyond, borne out by the fact (B) was her surname from her second marriage in 1945. But -and here is where the merriment came in - I know from research she did not marry (C) until 1974 so how come she had his surname recorded in the 1939 Register? Therein lies the mystery and one can only presume she 'played the field' during wartime, so husband No. 2 was likely cast aside during that time also, and she adopted (C) as her surname even if only making it legal many years later.

There's no mystery - the register was a working document and updated as changes occurred. As you'll know from my newsletter, until the 1990s (when it was all computerised) these handwritten registers were used as the NHS Central Register - hence all the markings on the right hand pages, most of which we don't get to see, unfortunately (see the image in my latest newsletter for an example of what we might see).

 

[Bob Spiers]

I very much doubt that the registers were OCR'ed - handwriting is very difficult to interpret.

I recently watched a short FMP video where (unless I misinterpreted what I saw) they showed a brief glimpse of the Registers being optically scanned by a stick OCR device (a bit like a single lens lorgnette) across the pages, line by line. There was even mention that the input would go on to be vetted to iron out any idiosyncrasies of handwriting. I never gave it another thought because to me it seemed a sensible way to get through so much with reduced person-power, and didn't envy those called upon to do the vetting.

 

[PaulC]

Are there any exceptions to the 100 year rule? I've unlocked the household for my great grandparents and my granddad's record is officially closed (as to be expected, since he was born in 1920), but his younger sister's record is open. She was born in 1923 but died in 1967. Her DoB is clearly written in the register and has been transcribed correctly so it's not like Peter's example above, which is why I'm not sure if this is intentional or not? A nice bonus for me either way, though!

On another household my great aunt's details have not been blanked out in the image, even though the transcription says that her record is closed. This looks like a straightforward error by FMP, but I don't wish to report it as I know she died in 2003.

Only Findmypast subscribers with 12 month Britain or World subscriptions are able to open up records via the website

I'm not sure this is true. I haven't tried it yet but I can access the "Evidence of Death Form" and I only have a one month subscription, thanks to the £1 offer in the previous newsletter.

I'm also curious to know how or if we can open up records without knowing the relevant household. With the best will in the world, we can't always know where our relatives were in 1939, or who they were living with.

 

[Bob Spiers]

There's no mystery - the register was a working document and updated as changes occurred. As you'll know from my newsletter, until the 1990s (when it was all computerised) these handwritten registers were used as the NHS Central Register - hence all the markings on the right hand pages, most of which we don't get to see, unfortunately (see the image in my latest newsletter for an example of what we might see).

I was referring to the mystery of what we found, not of the Register itself being a working document. I do recall reading about it in your Newsletter but was merely reiterating that I had discovered it for myself anyway by spotting the annotations and crossings-out, proving it to be a living document. The annotations incidentally were written alongside on the left in the original.

 

[uncle024]

A three part Puzzle! 1/ I have one locked entry, a relative , who was known to be at home about 1939, but died after 1991. Found the ladies parents living at a known address, I followed the link to 'Update the record' and chose 'Ask us to open closed record' filled in details and added image of death cert. That was no problem.
2/ I then have another relative who died in 1989, who I cannot find using all the usual tricks. So how do I unlock him. Problem is the FMP (and also TNA) need an address, or at least a county. I suppose I could pretend he was at the same address as another relation and see what happens?
3/ I have another relative who died in 2000, so obviously I cannot find him. Again I have no idea were he might be. I guess I may have to pay £42 and find him that way.
The system seems to assume that you know were someone was living in 1939. I am not complaining otherwise it works just fine and FMP have done a great job.
Anybody got similar problems?

 

[peter]

I was referring to the mystery of what we found, not of the Register itself being a working document.

What you wrote was "I know from research she did not marry (C) until 1974 so how come she had his surname recorded in the 1939 Register? Therein lies the mystery".

For the benefit of anyone reading this surreal correspondence, the register was created in 1939, but continued to be updated by hand until the mid-1990s, when it was computerised. You would therefore expect to see the new surname of someone who married in 1974.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I'm also curious to know how or if we can open up records without knowing the relevant household. With the best will in the world, we can't always know where our relatives were in 1939, or who they were living with.

True we can't always know where or with whom our relatives are living, but unless totally devoid of any information, you have the ability to search for individuals and discover all these things with the information you do have. A combination of first name and/or surname, a year of birth and county (town even better) will work more times than not, although you may need to spend time sifting through the answers revealed. I was unsuccessful in trying to find someone with an unusual surname (guessing it had been mis-transcribed) but found him because I knew his exact dob and just sifted through until I discovered him and the spelling used.

Although said many times and by different people, it is often true 'less is more' when it comes to a search. So just keep trying different permutations with different household members even if you have to have a stab in the dark. Persistence does pay and searching is free, so you only need to use your credits when you are sure you have located the household you seek.

 

[peter]

A three part Puzzle! 1/ I have one locked entry, a relative , who was known to be at home about 1939, but died after 1991. Found the ladies parents living at a known address, I followed the link to 'Update the record' and chose 'Ask us to open closed record' filled in details and added image of death cert. That was no problem.
2/ I then have another relative who died in 1989, who I cannot find using all the usual tricks. So how do I unlock him. Problem is the FMP (and also TNA) need an address, or at least a county. I suppose I could pretend he was at the same address as another relation and see what happens?
3/ I have another relative who died in 2000, so obviously I cannot find him. Again I have no idea were he might be. I guess I may have to pay £42 and find him that way.

Everyone is going to encounter this situation because during the war people had to move around.

You need to first eliminate the people who wouldn't have been registered at all because they were in the armed services - there's no point wasting time trying to find an entry that doesn't exist.

Younger people may - like my mother - have been evacuated. However, the record for a girl wouldn't necessarily have been updated when they married - I'm guessing this is the reason why my mother isn't indexed (she died in 1976, so her record should be open).

If you know somebody's NHS number it might be possible to figure out where they were - Audrey Collins' blog posting explains how numbers on the identity cards - which I think became NHS numbers - were derived from the references in the 1939 Register.

You can't find someone by paying £42 because (a) that service has been discontinued and (b) you would have had to tell them the address.

The system seems to assume that you know were someone was living in 1939. I am not complaining otherwise it works just fine and FMP have done a great job.

The project seems to have been designed around the 28 million open records, with less thought given to the 13 million closed records. This is understandable when you consider the commercial realities - the open records can generate income for Findmypast and the National Archives, whereas the closed records are more likely to lead to costs.

 

[Bob Spiers]

What you wrote was "I know from research she did not marry (C) until 1974 so how come she had his surname recorded in the 1939 Register? Therein lies the mystery".

For the benefit of anyone reading this surreal correspondence, the register was created in 1939, but continued to be updated by hand until the mid-1990s, when it was computerised. You would therefore expect to see the new surname of someone who married in 1974.

You have made your point Peter but I do object to you using the word surreal which it certainly wasn't to me when I wrote it. You assume as you often do that because you wrote in in a Newsletter it will be at the forefront of everyone's mind, well it isn't and it wasn't. However now I do know it went on to the 1990's I will be able to interpret facts much better so some good will come from your riposte.