Moderator Control Panel ]

1939 Register update

Share your thoughts with your fellow family historians – and the Who Do You Think You Are? Magazine team – here

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby AdrianB38 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:51 am

Andrea - their reply sounds nonsense. I understood that the routine to open the records ran automatically on a frequent basis - weekly if not daily. What's probably happened is that the name is incorrect in such a way that you can't recognise it, or the indexed birth date is wrong and therefore it hasn't been released.

I suspect that the guy talking to you was just reading off the script for how to open closed records. And the delay in opening might exist but not be specified in the script.

Sent from my MotoG3 using WDYTYA Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby AdrianB38 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:52 am

junkers wrote:I have been told by The National Archives (TNA) that the death certificate had to match exactly the entry, so if the original is spelt wrong then it won't be opened until 2040. ...


Why 2040?

Sent from my MotoG3 using WDYTYA Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby Mick Loney » Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:35 am

Adrian, I'm surprised at you! 1939+100 (plus 1 for safety) equals 2040. Only way they can guarantee that everyone on register must be 100 years old :):):)


Sent from my iPad using WDYTYA Forum
Mick Loney
 
Posts: 642
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:39 am

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby AdrianB38 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 7:25 am

But that's the point at which they can drop the redaction logic altogether.

For anyone who has a *legible* and *valid* date of birth, their release date comes automatically 100y after their birth-date.

2040 was introduced in this thread as the point at which anyone with an incorrectly spelled death certificate would be opened. In fact (surely) provided that their birth-date is legible and valid, they will be released 100y after that birth-date, not in 2040.

The problems with releasing via a death certificate come with incorrectly spelled names, people not being at the address where you think that they are (because if I recall correctly, you have to nominate the address where you think that they are?) and presumably if the age on the DC is not the same as the age on the Register (plus or minus 1?)

There may be other bits of validation that stop a release via death certificate.

But in all cases, auto release will still be at Register birth date plus 100y not in 2040.

What's interesting (as in "Oh ***" interesting) is how many people have illegible or invalid birth-dates in the Register. They can't be opened until 2040 but that, so far as I read, wasn't the scenario under discussion. Though it might have been what was intended!

Sent from my MotoG3 using WDYTYA Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby JaneyH » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:52 am

Adrian, with regard to opening a closed record with a death certificate my experience is that you DO need to provide FMP with an address in the 1939 Register. Therefore in my case the 16-year old Peter (born 1923) was not with his father, and his mother had passed away. He died in 1955 and I sent both his birth and death certificates to FMP but they were unable to help. Presumably he was with another family member ... but it's a big family! I think my only option is to work out which family members he might be with, look at whether there are closed records, then keep applying to FMP to unlock them with Peter's death certificate. If anyone has a better strategy, do let me know.


Sent from my iPhone using WDYTYA Forum
User avatar
JaneyH
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:35 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby AdrianB38 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 10:49 am

Thanks Janey - I thought that was the case but wasn't certain. Obviously(?) their concern is that they don't want to open the record for someone else who has the same name and a similar date of birth. But it still feels a bit chicken and egg.

Sent from my MotoG3 using WDYTYA Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2469
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby ianbee » Sat Dec 17, 2016 5:14 pm

On the very interesting point of people and streets not being transcribed, if Maxine is the lady who posted elsewhere a long while ago mentioning a grandparent in Farrant Street, Paddington -
In the 1939 Register,
Farrant Street, nos. 1-21 are found 0425H/011
The next page, 012, cannot be searched for, it can only be accessed via the previous one or the following one. All the names are redacted.
On that page no street name is visible, and there is only one house number showing, nearly in the middle, number 31, schedule 191. That schedule has a "V". Dashes are visible. So at least one schedule at the address seems to have been marked as vacant.
Further down, schedule 196 also has a V.
The next page, 0425H/013, starts at 45 Farrant Street (George Greenfield, born 25 Oct 78), and has numbers 47, 49, 51, and 53, plus 9.

Exactly the same thing on the even side of Farrant Street!
0425J/013 is 2-14 Farrant Street
0425J/014 is completely redacted, cannot be found via the search form
0425J/015 is 38-64 Farrant Street

Now under the last redacted entry of the page on the even side, 0425J/014, I can just read (being hopeful) "oria M." A little line to it from above?
Then another vacant schedule, 218, "top floor"
Could that "oria M" be a continuation of the name "Wellington, Victoria Maud", as found in the 1939 electoral register of Paddington, at 36 Farrant Street? Also listed was William Frederick Wellington.

Attempting a bit more detective work -
Marriage, Dec 1927 Hammersmith 1a 609
Carr, Victoria M - spouse Wellington
Wellington , William F - spouse Carr

Possible birth, June 1904 Kensington 1a 123
Carr, Victoria Maud

Can't see any children born to that couple. All the less reason for Victoria to be away somewhere, but I cannot find her in the free index to the 1939 Register! The Wellingtons were still listed at 36 Farrant Street on the 1945 electoral register.
I don't know what ultimately happened to Victoria, but If she was the Victoria Carr born in 1904, her record should certainly be open!
Similarly, again using the 1939 electoral register, I can't find others from the missing numbers in Farrant Street, both odd and even.
Food for thought perhaps!
Ian
ianbee
 
Posts: 2232
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby ianbee » Sat Dec 17, 2016 6:53 pm

Farrant Street, W10, no longer exists.
But we can see it on the 1954 OS map
http://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=19 ... rs=173&b=1
Not a long street, odds 1-53, evens 2-64. No break in it on either side. Nowhere else for an enumerator to disappear off to, rather than visit the people living in the middle on both sides.
Makes those totally redacted pages in the 1939 Register even more baffling.
ianbee
 
Posts: 2232
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby maxine tallon » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:45 pm

thank you Ianbee I thought I was going mad when despite several attempts I still could not find my grandmother, aunt and my mother on the 1939 register in Farrant Street. My Grandmother actually lived at number 31 which as you say is listed but with a V against it. This address was occupied throughout the war and in fact up to my Grandmother's death in 1957. There was another family also living there throughout the war years and into the 1950's. So how could it have been vacant!! I myself lived there from my birth till My grandmother and I went to Yorkshire in 1944, even then my mother and Aunt still lived in the house together with the other family who lived on the ground floor.

Looks like the enumerator called and didn't get a reply and never went back to check. Surely that would have meant the families wouldn't have been issued with ration cards, which they were.

FMP still haven't replied to my queries they seem to be ignoring the problems with the register. It would have been better left with acess as it was before FMP got hold of it.

maxine
maxine tallon
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby Guy » Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:48 pm

Have you read

http://www.rootschat.com/links/01j39/

That explains to some extent why some people and parts of streets were missing in the 1939 National Registration.
Such records are not on the 1939 but would be on the “current register” which is still closed.

Another explanation in some cases is that all the people living in the address in 1939 are still viewed as closed records, closed records are not listed which means if everyone in the house is still presumed to be alive the house will not be listed.

These are just a few of many reasons why not all addresses and people appear on the register.

Cheers
Guy
As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.
Guy
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:56 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Genealogy chat


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests