The 1939 Register

[peter]

Bob, I don't expect everyone to remember what I wrote 3 days ago (although it was also in my previous newsletter, 6 days before that), but perhaps you might have done a bit more investigation after reading the words 'working document'?

I used the word surreal because that's how our conversation seemed to me - I obviously didn't know that you had forgotten that it continued to be used as a working document into the 1990s. To the best of my knowledge describing our correspondence as surreal was disparaging to neither of us.

 

[uncle024]

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


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 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.

Thank you for some possible ways forward. Having paid HSCIC £42 in 2014 to obtain my mothers record without an address it would appear that the new service via TNA is a backward step albeit cheaper.

 

[peter]

Having paid HSCIC £42 in 2014 to obtain my mothers record without an address it would appear that the new service via TNA is a backward step albeit cheaper.

I'm surprised they provided a record without you providing an address in 1939, but perhaps they were able to work backwards from the computer records? I did try to download the form to check the requirements but it has disappeared from their website.

I'm sure that at some point they will expand the service, because they are legally obliged to provide the information. If the £25 has been calculated on the basis of cost recovery, perhaps the charge will reduce.

 

[emjay]

I note a useful identifier is female family members listed (as expected) with their 1939 surname and their later married surname in brackets (NHS edited I presume)

So far I have searched via the free method and frankly pleased that I have not paid out for a load of credits when there are so many closed entries in my family households. It would cost me a small (no...large!) fortune to provide evidence of death. However I will purchase some credits before the end of November when the offers expire, as obviously there will be some households of immense interest to me.

 

[Bob Spiers]

but perhaps you might have done a bit more investigation after reading the words 'working document'?

Yes perhaps I should but with only a distant recall of your articles I had it firmly in my mind that it remained a working document throughout the war and - as I dimly recalled you mentioning about it forming the basis for the newly formed NHS - likely extending through 1948 and a little beyond. That is why I found the record of the 1974 marriage a mystery. Even now you remind the Register remained as a 'working document' into the 1990's before being digitised, I still find the fact quite remarkable. However for the record it is now firmly entrenched in my memory and believe me that is quite something. My wife often remarks she has to tell me a thousand times before something sinks in so what chance do I have recalling your Newsletters?

 

[peter]

I've just attended a Findmypast webinar and was able to ask questions:

At the moment subscribers can't request that a record be opened unless they first find the household. My mother was evacuated at the start of the war and I'm sure many others are in the same position.

Hi Peter. If you send as much information as possible to our support team, they can check the data at the back end. If they are able satisfy the necessary privacy checks, the record can then be opened.

 

[peter]

I will purchase some credits before the end of November when the offers expire

Please note that the codes I sent out expire on 16th November - although the date wasn't in the email, it was in the newsletter.

 

[Essie]

Was the register compiled like a census with the house occupants actually present on that day/night or as record of who usually lived there but might be elsewhere at the time, so that you might expect to see a complete household together?
My mother is recorded as a married woman at the address I expected but with no sign of my father. His record is not closed, there is just nothing there for him. He was not in the services and I have tried a variety of name/age/sex/occupation variations with no success.

 

[Marguerite]

Have you tried to find him just by giving his excact birth / bapstism details, without name??

 

[Essie]

I have, Marguerite, and there are over 1,800 of them. As I understand it the register was used amongst other things for the issue of identity cards and ration books (which he had) so as they were a "household", married since 1934 I guess what I am puzzling over is 1) why don't they appear together and 2) why is Dad not registered at all - as it seems at the moment. I will keep looking, of course, but the costs are prohibitive for random or even informed guesses within other households.

 

[jorghes]

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.

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.

I flagged it as an error, as it is to me, and I wanted to see if it was written in the register as such, since I know my grandparents didn't marry until the 1940s, but equally I knew that my grandmother had only been married once. It is probably not an error per-se, as when the document was edited it was done with the best of intentions - but I find it strange that my grandmother was given a surname that was never hers, but perhaps that is vaguely understandable since she and my grandfather emigrated before 1950 and they may not have known that when using this register in later years.

It is a pretty terrible set of censor lines - you can even read my grandmother's occupation where the line slides down, although she is still incorrectly "censored" and the line over her name instead covers the occupation of her younger sister. I'll have to contact them about my great-aunt's entry being open and getting them to instead shift the line to "open" my grandmother's entry.

I just think it's a shame I don't have many people to search - one entire side of my family was living in Australia and of those who are left, most of them in my direct line had died by this time and a lot of the extensions had emigrated to North America... I found both my maternal grandparents (see above) then had a bit of fun finding the one set of great-great grandparents still alive (and have been blessed to find my great-great grandmother's birthdate, which means I can stop punting on options at attempting to find her birth extract and narrow the search down to a specific quarter) and then searched for each of their children to see where they were. I'll now have to start looking at the options for finding information in the Scottish version - as that's where the small number of my paternal side still in the UK in 1939 were.

Just on a note of interest - there seems to be no real rhyme or reason to how members of the households were listed on the register - when I opened up my great-great grandparents image, I found that their daughter was living in the same house with her husband and children - the parents were listed first, then the husband, then two "closed" spaces for their two children (both now deceased) and then my g-g-aunt. It surprised me that the children were listed between their parents instead of after!

 

[Sue345]

I found my Mother who at 101 died only a couple of weeks ago, (should her record have been open?) but her maiden surname has not been later updated.

On the plus side, I have Google Earthed the address and from the street view, have been able to identify a photo I have of a hitherto unknown house.

Also, I love the term 'Unpaid Domestic Duties'.

 

[jorghes]

I found my Mother who at 101 died only a couple of weeks ago, (should her record have been open?) but her maiden surname has not been later updated.

On the plus side, I have Google Earthed the address and from the street view, have been able to identify a photo I have of a hitherto unknown house.

Also, I love the term 'Unpaid Domestic Duties'.

My married great-great aunt as mentioned above was listed under her married name with no mention of her maiden name (even though she was living in the same house as her parents). I think that you'll find that those who married after 1939 had their married surnames added, but if they married before 1939 the name would have just been listed as their married name and their maiden name would not have needed to be added unless they remarried later.

I also love the term "unpaid domestic duties" and I would love to know what they listed small children's occupations as.

 

[peter]

Was the register compiled like a census with the house occupants actually present on that day/night or as record of who usually lived there but might be elsewhere at the time, so that you might expect to see a complete household together?
My mother is recorded as a married woman at the address I expected but with no sign of my father. His record is not closed, there is just nothing there for him. He was not in the services and I have tried a variety of name/age/sex/occupation variations with no success.

It was the former - for more details see Audrey Collins' blog posting - there's a link in my 15th October newsletter.

 

[peter]

I also love the term "unpaid domestic duties"

This and other descriptions were mandated in the instructions on the front of the form - see my newsletter of 15th October.

 

[peter]

I found my Mother who at 101 died only a couple of weeks ago, (should her record have been open?)

I'm sorry to hear about your mother. Records for people born over 100 years ago are open irrespective of whether they are still living.

 

[peter]

Have you tried to find him just by giving his exact birth / baptism details, without name??

I have, Marguerite, and there are over 1,800 of them.

You won't find as many as 1800 people born on any one day - make sure that you have selected a precise year (the default is +/- 2).

Edit: sorry, posted this in the middle of the night and muddled my numbers - please disregard

 

[peter]

Just on a note of interest - there seems to be no real rhyme or reason to how members of the households were listed on the register - when I opened up my great-great grandparents image, I found that their daughter was living in the same house with her husband and children - the parents were listed first, then the husband, then two "closed" spaces for their two children (both now deceased) and then my g-g-aunt. It surprised me that the children were listed between their parents instead of after!

They should have been entered in the same order as on the schedule completed by the head of household - you can see the line numbers in the third column. It may be that your great-great aunt was travelling and didn't return until the following day.

 

[Bob Spiers]

there's a link in my 15th October newsletter.

Peter I only have a copy of your Newsletter of 31st October and I have no email record of 15 October, I would like to read the Audrey Collins Blog, can you provide a link please, thanks.

 

[PaulC]

You won't find as many as 1800 people born on any one day - make sure that you have selected a precise year (the default is +/- 2).

You might be surprised. I'm also having difficulty tracking down a relative, and an exact search for his birthdate (29 March 1907) brings up 2,224 results.