Moderator Control Panel ]

1939 Register starts at "2", not "1"

A problem shared is a problem halved. Post your brick walls here and see whether you can offer advice to others

1939 Register starts at "2", not "1"

Postby AdrianB38 » Wed May 10, 2017 8:01 pm

The 1939 Register for Nellie Lofkin (living at 29 Sheppard St., Crewe) with Kathleen Lofkin (daughter?) shows that Nellie is the first line in the household - hers is the line with the address on - but she is schedule 283/2, instead of schedule 283/1.

There is a redacted line below Nellie (for 283/3 presumably) and then Kathleen appears as 283/4.

The next household is on the next line as 284/1, etc.

So where is the person for line 283/1? Although the line above Nellie is redacted, I do not believe that can be where 283/1 is hiding as Nellie has the address on her line.

If Nellie is who I think she is, then her husband is a British Army reservist in the Artillery, who may have been called up already. Hence his absence from the household (and Nellie is married not widowed). Could it be that the number 1 was reserved for her husband (who I have not otherwise found) but not used because he was either already gone or maybe even had his kit on, ready to walk out the door,so came under military id card rules?

Anyone seen any similar missing numbers in a household and been able to work out what they were for?

Thanks
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register starts at "2", not "1"

Postby Mick Loney » Thu May 11, 2017 8:02 am

Adrian,
I have 1939 sheets (see extract attached) where the address is repeated on 1st and 2nd line! With your 1st line redacted, perhaps you can't see that that may also have the address.
Perhaps Nellie's husband is 1st entry, but for some reason or other is still redacted.
Mike
Attachments
1939 0058E P012 extract.jpg
1939 0058E P012 extract.jpg (309.32 KiB) Viewed 1302 times
Mick Loney
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:39 am

Re: 1939 Register starts at "2", not "1"

Postby AdrianB38 » Thu May 11, 2017 9:56 am

Interesting, Mike. I can't quite see why your entry repeated the address - either the enumerator got carried away or they didn't like the abbreviation St for Street. So it does look like an accidental oddity to me.

But the difference between your case and mine is that in yours only the address repeats, whereas in mine, the first 3 digits of the schedule (283) would be repeated as well as the address, if her husband were under that redaction bar above. Now that's not impossible, but it does require a double oddity (i.e. the incorrect repetition of 2 items) rather than just one.

Still, it's another possibility to think about.

Anyone got any other instances of clearly missing sequence numbers?

Sent from my MotoG3 using WDYTYA Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register starts at "2", not "1"

Postby Guy » Thu May 11, 2017 11:47 am

Do you know when her husband was born, it looks like the redacted date could be July?
Another wild guess could Kathleen have been inserted above Nellie's entry then deleted or could there be a lodger living with them?

We can only make wild guesses as long as the entry is redacted.
Cheers
Guy
As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.
Guy
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:56 pm

Re: 1939 Register starts at "2", not "1"

Postby AdrianB38 » Thu May 11, 2017 4:12 pm

Guy wrote:Do you know when her husband was born, it looks like the redacted date could be July?
...

10 January 1906 - so if the enumerator wrote "Jany" then that would match the loops sticking down. On the other hand, further up the page, "Jan" is used.

I could pile speculation on speculation because the family above had 2 sons, it appears from the indexes, which would match the 2 redacted lines meaning that the redactions were definitely not in the Lofkin household.

The spelling "Lofkin" is incredibly rare - just 23 in the 1939 - and I can't see Lillie's husband, John / Jack Lofkin anywhere in the 1939. As he is a reservist and ended being captured up at Tobruk, it's very likely that the reason that I can't find him is that he's in the Army. (If he were under that redaction bar then he ought to be visible because he was born over 100y ago - though that assumes his birth data was accurate under that bar.) (Or, of course, the data in the 1939 for him bears no relation to reality).

Making the next step and saying that the "/1" entry was reserved for him and not used, is very definitely speculation, I appreciate that.
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 Register starts at "2", not "1"

Postby Mick Loney » Fri May 12, 2017 6:06 am

Adrian,
My above example seems to indicate that the enumerator wasn't happy with his own writing, and wrote it again to make it clear. Perhaps in your case he felt the same with the household number, and re-wrote that too. I'll take another look for more examples and see what I come up with. I found the above after looking at only 3 schedules, so perhaps not as uncommon as we think!


Sent from my iPad using WDYTYA Forum
Mick Loney
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:39 am

1939 Register starts at "2", not "1"

Postby Mick Loney » Fri May 12, 2017 11:46 am

Adrian,
Following on from last post, I have just found a sheet where enumerator has put the schdule number against every entry e.g. 113/1,113/2, 113/3 etc. Combining this with repeated address, could go some way in explaining your situation.

This suggests the enumerators were a law unto themselves, with no two doing it the same way, regardless of what they were supposed to do! :)

Edit:
Just found a sheet where address (i.e. House number and ditto) is written on every line AND each line contains the schedule number too!
e.g.
38 ditto 116/1
38 ditto 116/2
38 ditto 116/3
38 ditto 117/1
38 ditto 117/2
Etc etc.

Sent from my iPad using WDYTYA Forum
Mick Loney
 
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 11:39 am

Re: 1939 Register starts at "2", not "1"

Postby AdrianB38 » Fri May 12, 2017 12:30 pm

Hmmm again.

Conversely, the oddities that you describe are consistent over the whole page, I think, whereas the Lofkin household is an inconsistent oddity.

I guess that for anything up to the next 22y, I'll probably never know whether the husband is under that redaction bar above. The numbering certainly isn't enough to prove anything by itself.

I still think that the balance of probabilities is that the redaction bar belongs to the previous household (given its probable children), but whether the apparently missing /1 entry belongs to the husband or someone else originally on the form who departed before the enumerator arrived, we'll never know, I guess.

All very interesting... I'm sure that Sherlock would have solved it by now....

Sent from my MotoG3 using WDYTYA Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm


Return to General research queries


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron