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 maxine tallon » Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:58 pm

I have just checked the whole of Farrant street on the electoral register and every house is occupied. Checking all electoral roles starting with 1918 I have found many families listed on both roles yet their houses are not on 1939 or are blacked out! not all of these people would be alive today even under the 100 year rule, a lot of them have families and obviously moved into this street soon after it was built, someone has made a complete hash of transcribing this road.

While I was checking electoral roles on Ancestry I came across so many miss transcriptions of this road I got fed up with amending them.

maxine
maxine tallon
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby AdrianB38 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:00 pm

Re rationing books. These began to be issued in January 1940 but quite clearly babies would have been born between the compilation of the Register in the previous September and then. Also people would have moved into England and Wales from Northern Ireland and Scotland whose Registers would probably not have been easily accessible to the local bureaucracy or from outside the UK. And then there were the people who were accidentally missed or who deliberately refused to fill in the forms.

All this means that there would have been a top up mechanism to register the missing so that they could receive their ration books (and Identity cards).

Incidentally, according to the National Archives, it is still possible to make a Freedom of Information request to access the 1939 Register, though the form does require the address.

Sent from my MotoG3 using WDYTYA Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby AdrianB38 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:10 pm

Maxine, if the enumerator couldn't be bothered to pick up the completed forms, it's not really fair to blame FMP and, regrettably, in such a case, my suggestion of an FOI request wouldn't help either.

Sent from my MotoG3 using WDYTYA Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby maxine tallon » Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:57 pm

Adrian I'm not blaming FMP, I just think the whole thing was badly handled and you're correct a Freedom of information request wouldn't be any good.

maxine
maxine tallon
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby Guy » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:56 pm

maxine tallon wrote:Adrian I'm not blaming FMP, I just think the whole thing was badly handled and you're correct a Freedom of information request wouldn't be any good.

maxine


Why wouldn't a FoI request be any good? If you look at the form that has to be completed http://tinyurl.com/zvl8c5e the details you have to add are-

First names and last name
Gender
Year of birth
Nothing else, and then your details to receive the reply.
I of course assume you know these details for your grandmother.

Cheers
Guy

PS you would also have to have a copy of the Death Certificate
As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.
Guy
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:56 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby AdrianB38 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:08 pm

The request form is a little odd - it says that "we require the address" in the 1939 Register. Which is a problem if you can't find them. But then the same form is clear that the address is not an item marked as mandatory! A poor form....

Sent from my MotoG3 using WDYTYA Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby ianbee » Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:12 pm

With respect, to my mind neither Adrian nor Guy have explained those two pages of the 1939 register, as seen on findmypast, where ALL the entries are redacted. And where the pages on either side are the lower and upper numbers of Farrant Street, odd and even. That street being a short one, with no turn offs.

Maxine, re the V for vacant seen for number 31. At first I too thought it meant that the whole house was empty.
However, if you look at the first page of even numbers for Farrant Street, (ref) 0425J/013 -
House numbers 8 and 10 (schedules 198, 199) have no occupants and are marked V for vacant, but
Number 6 has two schedules. The first, 196 is V for vacant. Says "ground floor"
But schedule 197 has two names, Charles J., and Louisa C. Grainger.
So it seems perfectly possible that the lone house number, 31, seen on 0425H/011, may also have inhabitants, even though the only schedule that we can see (191) had a V.
(We can also see from all this that Farrant Street must have been split down the middle for enumeration purposes)
Now, if it was 31 Farrant Street, and your family were not elsewhere (and you can't find them elsewhere!), then it could mean that there were normally other occupants at that address, but they were not there on 29th September 1939.
And you yourself said that there were indeed other occupants! The 1939 electoral register shows that Ellen Florence Iddenden was also living there. A distinctive enough name, and she was even at 31 Farrant in the 1911 census, age 31, born Cambridge, the wife of William Iddenden.
She was still listed in Farrant Street in 1945.
Quick research shows that she was born Ellen Florence Bassenden, birth registered Cambridge, Dec qtr 1879. Also that she most likely died in Hackney in 1961.
So could she have been elsewhere on that particular night in 1939? Answer, possibly.
Living in Piercing Hill, Dunmow, Essex
Ellen F Iddenden, born 29 Sept 1878, Widowed, Incapacitated
The bulk of the household contains people called Guest.
Why she might have been there, I don't know. Age is one year out, not unusual. No sign at all from the marriage and death indexes that it could be anybody other than the lady normally resident in Farrant Street.
Ian
ianbee
 
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby AdrianB38 » Sun Dec 18, 2016 6:03 pm

You're not kidding I haven't explained it. I was pinning my hopes on your suggestion that the houses were recorded as empty even if they weren't.

Now, reading your latest post, I'm less hopeful.

Just to confuse matters, I checked Nantwich Road in Crewe. There, what are probably shops (I know the area) are visible, not redacted, have a Schedule number (usually!) but a dash for the sub-number, have a street number and a V at the far left.

So emptiness does not always lead to redaction - indeed, I can't even see how it could, although as an ex-IT guy, I can say that assigning "values" to an empty item is fraught.

Sent from my MotoG3 using WDYTYA Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby maxine tallon » Mon Dec 19, 2016 8:59 am

Ellen Iddenden was living at 31 Farrant Street when the register was taken she lived there until she died, I too thought she was not there at the time and also picked up the other entry, but my Aunt who is now 98 said she was there, she had lived there for the same amount of time my family, the two families were friends.

maxine
maxine tallon
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register update

Postby ianbee » Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:45 pm

Maxine, I think that really is Ellen from 31 Farrant Street in Theydon Bois in the 1939 Register!
She was there with her granddaughter!
We know that she lived in Paddington. But if she was somewhere else on the night of 29th September she would have been enumerated in that place, not at her usual residence.

Her marriage -
25 December 1905, at St Philip Dalston
William Iddenden
+
Ellen Florence Bassenden, 25, Spinster, Book keeper, father Alfred Bassenden, Deceased

In 1911, at 31 Farrant Street, Ellen had just the one child, a son.
But she later had a daughter -
June 1914 Paddington 1a 22
Iddenden, Alma F
mother - Bassenden

Alma F Iddenden married Henry F P Coombes, Sep 1932 Paddington 1a 234
They had a daughter -
March 1934 Paddington 1a 11
Coombes, Joan P
mother - Iddenden

Alma's daughter was in Theydon Bois with Ellen in the 1939 Register
4 Piercing Hill
Guest George A P, born 8 Nov 92, Married
Guest Florence M, born 15 March 90, Married
Guest George W, 31 Nov 71, Married
Guest Amelia J, 31 Jul 73, Married
Iddenden Ellen F, 29 Sept 78, Widowed, Incapacitated
Coombes Joan P (later Williams), 16 Jan 34, At School

So I am guessing that Joan had been evacuated, and Ellen was visiting her.
Alma Coombes was also away from home when the Register was taken. She and husband Henry lived at 168 Church Street, Stoke Newington. Only Henry is there on the 29th September 1939.
In the mid 50's Ellen Iddenden left Farrant Street, and went to live in Church Street with her daughter. Hence her death being in Hackney district.
Incidentally, the Guest family had long lived at 24 Warbeck Road, Hammersmith. George Walker Guest and wife Amelia Jane were still listed there in the 1939 electoral register. But in the National Register, as we can see, they are with their son George in Piercing Hill and 24 Warbeck Road is marked as vacant.

So it's possible that the vacant schedule we can see at number 31 would in normal circumstances have been filled by Ellen Iddenden.
Everything still points to it being in Farrant Street!
Ian
ianbee
 
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Genealogy chat


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests