The 1939 Register

[uncle024]

Just received an email from FMP. I'm glad I stuck it out and resisted the temptation to buy credits.

Received same email as I have an annual World sub. Now that gives me an interesting decision to make. I did succumb to buying loads of credits and have "559 credits available until 03/04/2016". The observant will notice that that is 9x60 with 19 leftover. Ages ago you had to but credits for some records and when the 1939 register came online my old credits were re-activated. So I guess best to "bank" the credits.

 

[Mike]

This is amazing but potentially exhausting. There are 3516 results matching my one name study surname.

 

[Tim]

And the rest of the email says


Finally, we wanted to let you know we're opening up access to most of our records for free this weekend*, so we'll be adding three extra daysonto your current subscription for free. We'll be in touch to let you know when they've been added.

* Free access Weekend does not include the 1939 Register or electoral roll records.

 

[Tim]

This only applies to 12 month subscribers and is accompanied by a 20% increase in the price of subscriptions (although existing subscribers will have their next renewal frozen at the current price less their 10% loyalty discount).

I see, they don't mention the price going up, only that it stays the same for me.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Great news! I'll now be able to check out the not so close relatives on the 1939 Register without bankrupting myself!

 

[Bryman]

I see, they don't mention the price going up, only that it stays the same for me.

Mine did mention the new increased price and how much I would save (in USD) by using auto-renew. Unfortunately, the current regular annual price less 10% loyalty discount is still way more than my last renewal which was offered at a 75% discount! Oh well, perhaps I should just be grateful for any savings and not expect to win the lottery every year.

 

[patzy]

Being a long-term 12 months subscriber I was really pleased to see this. I was quite prepared to pay a bit more to get full access to the 1939 Register, - as I did with the 1911 Census. This was indeed a surprise.

FMP seem to look after their regulars. Get your act together Ancestry !

 

[Norman]

After the 1939 Register was opened to FMP 12 month subscribers (yesterday) I decided to dip my toes in the water being unable/unwilling to pay the fees for the service up to now.

I suppose, like most people, I began by searching for my parents (both deceased) and who were born in 1907 & 1908 and should be "open". I could find neither where I expected to find them and so I tried my maternal grandparents. That household shows both my grandparents and two of my aunts, of 7 children known to be alive in 1939. There are two closed records but no clue as to whether either might be my mother.

I was born in 1946 in a house opposite my grandparents so did a search for that house but did not find my parents there. Another search for my father found him, with one of my mother's brothers at another house further along the road but no-one else from my family were present at that address. It seems odd that FMP require a proof of death for a person that should be open anyway. It may well be that neither of two closed records are for my mother and the reason I can't find her is because of transcription error(s). What happens if I send a request to have a record opened if it is already open?

I would be pleased to hear other's experience of this sort of problem.

 

[Norman]

After posting the above I thought I would try another search for my mother. As I said, I couldn't find her where I expected and knew she and my elder brother had been evacuated during the war. I couldn't find her in the area they were evacuated to. There was an entry for Harrow, which was then in Middlesex, so had a look at that entry. Lo and behold there she was with her sister-in-law (the wife of her brother who was found with my father near my grandparents.). I remembered then that one of her other brothers lived in Stanmore (near Harrow) in later years and, it seems, they were staying there a little further away from any likely bombing raid. There were two closed entries that I assume are my brother and cousin.

Problem solved.

 

[peter]

It seems odd that FMP require a proof of death for a person that should be open anyway.

Unfortunately you can't report a transcription error until you've seen the record; indeed you don't know that there has been a transcription error until you've seen the record. I would suggest that you first work out whether your mother is likely to be one of the closed records - see my Special newsletter for tips.

What happens if I send a request to have a record opened if it is already open?

You can't - you only have the option to open a closed record.

Although Norman has solved his problem these answers might be useful for others.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

There are a lot of mistranscriptions and some of them you can't see why they were mistranscribed! Have you searched by date of birth? Does your mother have a common or uncommon first name or surname? I've made lots of corrections especially since the site has been free to view for subscribers.

 

[peter]

There are a lot of mistranscriptions and some of them you can't see why they were mistranscribed!

There are good reasons why there are more transcription errors than usual - see my special newsletter (though even so, Findmypast met the target of 98% accuracy set by TNA).

It's always easier to read handwriting when we know (or can guess) what it's supposed to say and can see the entire entry - and of course we're not up against time pressure. Someone who doesn't have our knowledge of the family, can't see the entire entry, and only has a few seconds to make a decision, is much more likely to make an error.

 

[MelG]

With my FMP subsciption I too can now access the 1939 Register so glad I waited before buying credits. I've noticed in some of the entries that somebody has backtracked and added married surnames to the female entries which is surprising as some of the marriages were a long time after 1939, e.g. 1953.

 

[peter]

With my FMP subsciption I too can now access the 1939 Register so glad I waited before buying credits. I've noticed in some of the entries that somebody has backtracked and added married surnames to the female entries which is surprising as some of the marriages were a long time after 1939, e.g. 1953.

Can I suggest that anyone who has a query about the 1939 Register reads my special newsletter before posting on the forum? It makes me wonder why I bother.....

 

[Gillian]

Despite all, we're really glad you bother, Peter.

 

[PhilGee]

Having read the "1939 newsletter" more than a couple of times I still find some errors inexplicable. I've only looked at 6 households and, ignoring the "handwriting " errors,
- someone of three months being married (though it was a crossed through "M" with an added "S")
- someone with the correct address listed with the family in the next house (possibly a missed line entry by one transcriber)
- no 4 letter "ED" code, though it is on the image and clear
- an address as "..., Sea View" for 7 groups following that house (the error is obvious from the next page, where the continuation of "Manor House, Sea View" is "Manor House, Kittle"). Interestingly, the fifth entry in the groups is for "Kittle, Sea View" instead of "Kittle"

Phil

 

[peter]

Having read the "1939 newsletter" more than a couple of times I still find some errors inexplicable. I've only looked at 6 households and, ignoring the "handwriting " errors,
- someone of three months being married (though it was a crossed through "M" with an added "S")
- someone with the correct address listed with the family in the next house (possibly a missed line entry by one transcriber)
- no 4 letter "ED" code, though it is on the image and clear
- an address as "..., Sea View" for 7 groups following that house (the error is obvious from the next page, where the continuation of "Manor House, Sea View" is "Manor House, Kittle"). Interestingly, the fifth entry in the groups is for "Kittle, Sea View" instead of "Kittle"

Phil

The first two are easily explained - take another look at my article about transcription errors.

The ED code wouldn't have been transcribed - it's meta data - so it's not a transcription error. And you can't search on it anyway, so it wouldn't matter if it was wrong or missing.

The last error is the only one for which the transcriber might be held responsible, but I'd need to see it to be sure. On the basis of what you've said it sounds as if the transcriber thought that Sea View was the name of the road, whereas it was actually the name of a house.

Thank goodness the poor transcribers have got me to defend them!

 

[MaggyC]

I found my mother and grandparents living where I knew they would be together with a closed entry - my aunt, still with us. My dad, however, is still missing. Well, not missing. I knew that he wasn't at home, there's only his mam, my nana, there, as dad had been evacuated in September. I also know where he was evacuated to - Northallerton. But, although he died in 2011, he is still there, somewhere in Northallerton, as a closed entry. He used to talk about the lady who 'took him in' and remained friends with her until she died in the 1970s. I know I know the name; it's just waiting there in my head waiting to be found.

 

[peter]

and remained friends with her until she died in the 1970s. I know I know the name; it's just waiting there in my head waiting to be found.

When my Dad died in 2011 I found all of his old address books, some going back to the early 60s. If your father and his surrogate mother remained friends she must surely be in his address book from that era (if it has survived).

 

[MaggyC]

Dad moved from the family home in 1984 and into a much smaller house when I was expecting my daughter and living a couple of hundred miles away and unfortunately many things were just thrown out. I wish I could go back and rescue things that I know we had. But that's life. I've got my sister thinking about names now - two heads and all that!!