You're right - it was nearly 2am and I confused my statistics.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.
You're right - it was nearly 2am and I confused my statistics.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.
Each newsletter links to the one before - you'll find the link immediately below the Contents.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.
They should have been entered in the same order as on the schedule completed by the head of household -
The schedules don't exist - all we can see are the registers.I've noticed that although they may appear in no particular order on the preview page, their individual numbers e.g. /010/33 are in numerical order from head of household. How they appear on the schedule I have yet to view, not having unlocked any households yet.
Years ago as a lad when interested in magic, I recall reading of a party trick I could perform where there were more than 15 persons present. Apparently if you have more than 15 persons present there will be a very strong chance that two share the same birthday (not the year -just the birthday). I tried it over and over as a party trick asking them to write their birthday on a piece of paper. If less than 15 persons, I simply asked them to write their own birthday and that of someone they knew who was not present. In all the time I tried this I can only recall one failure.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.
The schedules don't exist - all we can see are the registers.
No problem - I just wanted to make sure that nobody reading this would get the wrong impression. When the 1939 Register launched on Monday some people (probably not LostCousins members) were disappointed not to see the household schedules, so clearly there is scope for confusion.I meant to say page or whatever
It's worth bearing in mind that buying credits 900 a a time works out a little cheaper than three lots of 300, even if you get a 25% discount on every purchase (and at this stage we don't know if there will be a third discount code issued). Obviously not everyone will want 900 credits, but from the correspondence I've received I know that a lot of LostCousins members do.Yesterday I used my Findmypast discount code to access the 1939 register (25% off the price for 5 households), and this morning they offered me a second 25% discount because I'd already used the first one - very tempting!
Bear in mind that the register had to be updated when people moved, married, died, or changed their name, and - from 1948 onwards - when they changed doctor. If you could see the whole of the right hand side of the page you'd probably see a lot more notation (see the example in my 31st October newsletter). I don't know the circumstances in which people moved to a different page - it may have been when they moved out of the district, when they ran out of space for amendments, or when they began a family. Or something I haven't thought of.The households I looked at threw up a couple of surprises. My great-uncle and his wife appeared twice at different addresses in Brighton and Hove. I picked one to unlock and when I looked at the image discovered that there was a red line through both names and a cross-reference to a different volume of the register. Hmm.
You can easily see whether or not they were in the same household from the numbering of the entries. In wartime a lot of people had to move around the country - this might explain strangers in your family home.The second mystery concerns the address where my parents-in-law were living. My husband was born in this house and remembers it as being modest in size, but according to the register there were 3 families living in it - 8 people in all. The names of the supposed additional occupants meant nothing to him so they were not friends of his parents who happened to be staying. The solution may lie in the house numbering - this house is the last in a sequence, then there's a gap, so perhaps the enumerator failed to note the numbers.
I used my remaining credits to look at the second entry for my great-uncle and his wife, and am none the wiser. They are still at the same address, although the other entries on the page all have different addresses in Hove, and there are a lot of closed records - including several between my gt-uncle's and his wife's. Obviously some sort of updating has been carried out, but it's not clear what.Bear in mind that the register had to be updated when people moved, married, died, or changed their name,
Evacuees, perhaps? That would probably explain why they moved the entry to a different part of the register - there wasn't room to list the evacuees.there are a lot of closed records - including several between my gt-uncle's and his wife's
Well done - any search tips to pass on?As it is my father's birthday today I thought I would have another go at finding him. Success! Also very interesting, a part of his life I had forgotten. His present to me perhaps?
Seems to be the lowest 'item' number from my searches i.e. the owner or rent payer, where the male woud be named ahead of in the case of a couple.. I still do not know who the "Head" of the household is,
I've tried that too, Marguerite, and confirmed a number of hunches that way.made a blank search, just using the piece and item number
Good point. My great-uncle's occupation (which I hadn't known) is given as 'Independent Hotel Proprietor', so that might well explain it.Evacuees, perhaps?