1939 Re-entered entries

[FrenchK]

My Great Aunt "Bessie Emma Wright" went missing, we think, just after my father was born in 1942. I have been trying to find her in the 1939 register for several years and think I may at last have succeeded. The entry I have found, has her in Freebridge Lynn, Norfolk with the correct birth day and month, but 1902 instead of 1893. There is then a correction added above that corrects the year to 1895 with the letters ALA next to them and then in red it says re-entered on page 22.
I understand that the letters ALA are referring to the district of Islington, which makes sense from the family stories that have been passed down as there was a strong link with that area of London, and it had been presumed that she had been killed there in the bombing.

On page 22 there has been added in green pen the letter E which fits with her middle name and now the birth year is corrected to 1893 with the letters TRJ and the date 26.1.49. Using the list of codes TRJ is Erpingham, Norfolk. Does this mean that in January 1949 she could have been in Erpingham? And does anyone know what the red "POST HERE" means? It was added to several records on that same page.



Any advice would be appreciated. Many thanks

 

[BerryW]

I'm not able to answer your query, but did note that the surname shown on the first image looks very much like Wraight rather than Wright. As a Wraight, I usually have to tell people that Wright is wrong so it seem very strange to see it the other way round. :-D

 

[Stuart]

"Post here" must be to indicate which lines should be filled in with a copied entry. There's a curved red line to the right of that, which looks to me like curly braces linking that line to the one below, and perhaps the one above as well. That red writing would have been done before any of the copied entries were written. Note that the "C" and "*" marked in red were done later, and are unconnected - and a different shade of red.

Those blanked out lines in between would then not be entries for be more people, but something administrative or perhaps blank lines just to space out the written lines. That might be done to ensure no-one tried to read them as a household, as on the main pages.

 

[peter]

Those blanked out lines in between would then not be entries for be more people, but something administrative or perhaps blank lines just to space out the written lines. That might be done to ensure no-one tried to read them as a household, as on the main pages.

Not long after the NHS was founded identity cards were abolished, and the registers were repurposed to keep track of the NHS district in which each person was registered.

Those lines are closed records. The blank pages at the back of the register were used as continuation entries, usually for individuals whose original (1939) entry was full up - something that isn't obvious to us because we don't see the right hand pages.

It was usually the younger people whose entries filled up, partly because they moved around more, and partly because they lived longer. So entries at the hack of the book are much more likely to closed - though for each closed entry at the back there will be a corresponding entry at the front which is also closed.

 

[webwiz]

Any idea what "see back" means in this 1939 entry?

 

[peter]

Any idea what "see back" means in this 1939 entry?

An entry in the back of the book. This could mean there were additional houses in the same close where the schedule numbers aren't in sequence.

 

[webwiz]

Thanks, but I am not sure what you mean by "book". This entry is not in sequence itself and is on p22 of 23 when the other homes in St Vincent's Close are on pp16-17.
RG101/1803C/023/27

Or perhaps it means "see backwards" to p16-17 where it should sequentially be.

 

[peter]

Thanks, but I am not sure what you mean by "book".

Register.

 

[Heather]

Looking at the whole of St Vincents Close entries it appears to me that maybe number 7 was missed for some reason and then added on the second last page, page 22, so if this is what happened, "see back" would mean " go back to previous entries for this address" just a thought .

 

[peter]

maybe number 7 was missed for some reason

The schedule number is certainly out of sequence, and perhaps the reason for this was noted on the back of the schedule. It's certainly nothing to do with continuation entries since they relate to people, not addresses, and in any case it seems to have been written by the enumerator.

 

[webwiz]

There are several anomalies with this page:
No 7 is out of sequence
The sequence of individuals at no.7 is not normal
The day, month & year of George Canton's dob have ticks and an annotation "SH" under Marital Status
"See back".
In the following entry the marital status is clearly D but has been transcribed as Single. It is most unlikely that a labourer would have been divorced.