Ancestry has access to 1939 Register

[jorghes]

Just noticed today (as it came up in hints when I was fixing some errors in my tree) that Ancestry now has the 1939 Register on their site.

They also have access to the images of each of the pages. They do not have access to closed entries, and from my searches, my grandmother, who died in the 1960s is supposed to be open (especially since she was born in 1915 regardless) and due to an issue with the 1939 Register is open in search on FTM but closed in the image; is closed for Ancestry.

But it means that for the most part, the 1939 Register can now be accessed by those with an Ancestry subscription.

 

[GillW]

Ancestry are offering free access to the 1939 register this weekend.

 

[Susan]

There has been a lot of discussion about Ancestry's 1939 register on a Monmouthshire group I am a member of. Most people on there reckon the transcriptions are not as good as on FMP, though so far I have found the people I need using the search box. However, I have discovered that when attaching the 1939 register to a tree, only the county is entered even though it gives the town and street in the transcription. I will need to enter the town manually for each person for those 1939 entries I have not added already using information from FMP.

 

[jorghes]

But with Ancestry you can add the alternative transcriptions for when theirs is incorrect and it makes it much easier for everyone else. I have managed to find some very interesting transcriptions when looking for people on FMP, so at least Ancestry will allow me to edit the search. (They had transcribed my grandfather's birth year to 1902 as opposed to 1909).

I've noticed that county only addition, to be honest it's more than a little annoying. I have started copying the place when I attach the reference.

 

[PhilGee]

Having received the "announcement e-mail" this morning, I had a quick look at the record for my parents. Despite my brother being born in "June" and an entry a three lines below for "Joseph Jones", the transcriber managed to get my brother's name wrong (Jan instead of Ian)! Whilst I have sympathy for the transcribers due to the pressures to produce output quickly, the handwriting is a very clear and consistent hand.

Phil

 

[peter]

Ancestry are offering free access to the 1939 register this weekend.

I'll be including tips in my newsletter, so if you discover anything useful - other than the advantages of having a second transcription - let me know.

 

[peter]

Having received the "announcement e-mail" this morning, I had a quick look at the record for my parents. Despite my brother being born in "June" and an entry a three lines below for "Joseph Jones", the transcriber managed to get my brother's name wrong (Jan instead of Ian)! Whilst I have sympathy for the transcribers due to the pressures to produce output quickly, the handwriting is a very clear and consistent hand.

The 1939 Register issue of my newsletter explains why there are more transcription errors.

 

[Tim]

I haven't received an email yet.....

 

[peter]

I haven't received an email yet.....

If you're registered under your Hotmail address that could explain it - Hotmail are one of the worst email providers when it comes to disappearing incoming emails.

 

[Tim]

Hmmm

 

[Margery]

I can't open the "view image" box and keep getting directed to the page offering me membership of UK Heritage Plus. I'm probably doing something wrong...

 

[peter]

I can't open the "view image" box and keep getting directed to the page offering me membership of UK Heritage Plus. I'm probably doing something wrong...

The 1939 Register is only free at Ancestry.co.uk - don't allow yourself to be redirected to your local site. Sorry I didn't make this clear in the newsletter.

 

[Margery]

Thank you Peter. I'll have another try though I think that I am being automatically redirected to .au.

 

[Margery]

I am being automatically redirected to .au.

Yes, that is what's happening. Are any other Australian forum members having this problem? How do I disallow the redirection?

 

[peter]

Yes, that is what's happening. Are any other Australian forum members having this problem? How do I disallow the redirection?

Margery, I've now replied to the email you sent - there's more information there that will help you.

 

[Margery]

I've now replied to the email you sent

Thanks again, Peter. Your message received and understood. Unfortunately time is running out (11.25pm Sunday) but I have made some great discoveries.

 

[CarolB08]

I was interested to see that Ancestry had got their own version of the 1939 Register and thought I would take a look for my Mother who was born in 1917 and died in 1979, on findmypast the entry I thought was hers in my Grandfathers house was still redacted. Twice I submitted her death certificate and twice they said it was not her in the household. So imagine my surprise when on checking Ancestry's version there she was but not where I expected her to be, I downloaded the image and then looked again at Findmypasts version, I could not find her anywhere, I tried every wild card I could think of but still could not find her. So in desperation I did a browse through the hospital I now know she was working in at the time of the registers taking and sure enough there she was. So I emailed them and they to could not find her either so they referred it to their tech team and today I received the news that they had added her to the index and she now shows up when I search for her. I am so happy.

 

[jorghes]

Well done Carol! I wish it was that easy to fix the error that has my grandmother not appearing on the 1939 register - she's able to be searched on FMP, and she will appear in the search, but when you view the document itself, she has been redacted. Therefore she isn't searchable on the Ancestry version.

Its all a bit silly though, other than the fact that my grandmother died in the 1960s (in Australia and I don't have access to her death certificate at this point); but if she was still living, she would be the ripe old age of 103 since she was born in 1915. I haven't yet found an appropriate "category" with which to ask FMP to open up her record on the image.

 

[Bryman]

my grandmother died in the 1960s (in Australia and I don't have access to her death certificate at this point); but if she was still living, she would be the ripe old age of 103 since she was born in 1915. I haven't yet found an appropriate "category" with which to ask FMP to open up her record on the image.

I believe that closed records should be opened when the subject was born more than 100 years ago. If your knowledge of the 1915 birth date is recorded in the redacted record then a request for it to be opened should be successful.

 

[jorghes]

I believe that closed records should be opened when the subject was born more than 100 years ago. If your knowledge of the 1915 birth date is recorded in the redacted record then a request for it to be opened should be successful.

Well, she's open in the search, which bares that out, but closed on the image. So it's possible that FMP already thinks she's open. I just haven't figured out under which "category" I should point out that she should also be open in the image.

There are a few other problems with her entry - she emigrated in 1950s, and thus her entry on the register should not have continued to be updated, but someone has added a marriage for her (i.e. changed her surname on the register) to someone she did not marry.

UPDATE:
I can't seem to point out their error as I don't have the death certificate for my grandmother (it's particularly difficult to get it off the South Australian government), regardless if she is open or not (nor for that matter of her younger sister who is open in the image and closed in the search although she died in 2012). I can't give it as an error, as it only lets me correct the transcription.

So where else can I tell them of their mistake?