Moderator Control Panel ]

1939 register change to man's name incorrect?

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

1939 register change to man's name incorrect?

Postby davidtdonnelly316 » Sat May 26, 2018 10:58 pm

I have been doing some research on Harry Broady (born 2 Feb 1910 in Sculcoates, Yorkshire East Riding and died 31 October 1986 in Plymouth, Devon) and have come across something strange on the 1939 register.
He is listed as living at 34 Park Road, Melton Mowbry, Leicestershire with his correct date of birth. However, his surname (Broady) has been crossed out and changed to Ingleton (this is done in red ink). To our knowledge there is no reason for that. He married as Harry Broady ten years later (Sep 1949) to Mary Ellen Wakefield (nee Clemo), and died as Harry Broady on 31 October 1986. His son has no knowledge of any reason for a name change in 1939.
Interestingly, a couple of lines above his entry an Alice Smith (born 30 Dec 1877 and married to Naphtali Smith) also had her name changed to Ingleton (also in red ink) and then back to Smith (using blue ink).
There are some numbers/letters written next to Harry Broady's name:
51143
RGU.i.c
and an X written next to his Schedule sub. no.

Has anyone any idea what this could mean and why this change could have been made on this record?
davidtdonnelly316
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:45 pm

Re: 1939 register change to man's name incorrect?

Postby JMcK » Sun May 27, 2018 1:12 am

RGU. Just means it was the Melton & Belvoir enumeration District
JMcK
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:59 pm

Re: 1939 register change to man's name incorrect?

Postby AdrianB38 » Sun May 27, 2018 7:02 am

"a name change in 1939" - the name change wasn't in September 1939, it was at some point after. It's tempting to say that it was done on 5.11.43, ie 5 November 1943 - my impression is that there is usually a date there, which tends to be the date of the alteration. However, it is odd not to see some punctuation between the numbers so 51143 just might be a file reference number.

Normally, of course, name changes refer to women who married and therefore had their name changed either for a new id card or within the NHS, whose Register this became. Such alterations are not normally made in red, I don't think, so what the red means here, I've no idea.

Very peculiar, particularly with the other Ingleton change, based on what you say about his history.

I wonder if someone was told to change the names on page X, rows Y and Z? And they misread the instruction and changed the wrong page? It's not only internet companies that make transcription errors... But if it were done in error, how come no one ever corrected it? Though would it ever be noticed?

Strange...


Sent from my MotoG3 using WDYTYA Forum mobile app
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2536
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 register change to man's name incorrect?

Postby ianbee » Sun May 27, 2018 8:03 pm

Wouldn't it have been noticed when it came to making Alice's name Smith again? That one ought to have been the second change for her.
Is the red ink handwriting the same on the two alterations? The letter g doesn't look so very similar. If not, then not made at the same time.There is certainly no date for Alice's name change in red ink from Smith to Ingleton.
So, yes, it might be that the red ink change was made to the wrong person. On changing Alice to Smith in 1946, did they then use red ink to hastily scribble in the expected Ingleton name (that wasn't there), and then use the blue ink to immediately cross it out and write in Smith? Intriguing! Or just a fantasy on my part!

They were all at the same address - the Smith couple were also at 34 Park Road. Heading up the schedule. Number 34 is the only Park Road address on the page (was it done in bits?)

The 1946 date for Smith makes sense as Alice M Ingleton married Napthali Smith at that time. It appears likely that Alice's first husband (James William Ingleton) had just died (but he was given as single in 1939)
After Napthali and Alice on that schedule comes Martha Chambers, whose name has later been changed to Clayton - she seems to have had a remarriage in 1940 (and no date of the change given in the Register)
I think Martha must have been a sister of Alice (looks like she originally had the surname May - Alice Millicent May), and the Ingletons had a niece called Chambers with them in 1911.
So the first three on the schedule are connected.
The next three, including Harry Broady, look like they were lodgers? All being unmarried males.
None of those people were at that address on the 1938 electoral register! Don't seem to have 39.
ianbee
 
Posts: 2289
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 4:51 pm

Re: 1939 register change to man's name incorrect?

Postby AdrianB38 » Sun May 27, 2018 9:29 pm

I think that your Alice & Napthali story is a good bet for being the explanation, Ian.

So this is my speculative time-line:
1. Sep 1939 - When the Register is compiled, Napthali Smith and Alice Ingleton hold themselves out to be married, so Alice gets written down as Alice Smith.

2. Circa November 1943, the "error" on Alice's Id Card is discovered and a correction is issued to change her name to Alice Ingleton. The correction probably cites her id RFJB/81/2 and says "Correct name to Ingleton because of error". The clerk who's updating the Central Register (because I think we've established that the chaps dealing with the Id Cards after 1939 didn't have the Central Register with them) uses red ink (because it's a correction?) misreads the instruction and corrects not RFJB/81/2 but RFJB/81/4. Either there's no other data to cross-check or the harassed clerk ("Don't you know there's a war on?") didn't check. Harry Broady (on line 4) is totally unaware of this as the new / updated card has correctly gone to Alice and no-one's going to do anything more with his card.

3. In 1946, Alice and Napthali marry - Alice gets her (new?) card in the name of Smith to replace her Ingleton card and the request goes from the local office to the Central Register to note that RFJB/81/2 Alice Ingleton has married so her name's been changed to Alice Smith.

4. At the Central Register office they discover that RFJB/81/2 Alice is already Alice Smith so to record the change, they enter a red correction of her name to Ingleton (finally completing the missed 1943 correction) and then, yes, immediately, I reckon, enter her updated married name of Smith.

5. Did they notice the "Ingleton" against Harry? Who knows? As they have no real reason to imagine that Harry's line might be incorrect, they'd probably imagine it simply coincidence and let sleeping dogs lie.

Well, well. The above, I emphasise again is my speculation but I think it matches the "facts" of the case, Watson... ;)
Adrian
AdrianB38
 
Posts: 2536
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:07 pm

Re: 1939 register change to man's name incorrect?

Postby davidtdonnelly316 » Sun May 27, 2018 10:03 pm

Thank you to everyone who replied and especially to ianbee and AdrianB38. I was coming round to the idea that it was a mistake and that the X next to Harry Broady's entry indicated that this correction should be ignored.

I found the facts that have been discovered and the details on the process for making changes and issuing ID cards very informative, so many thanks once again ianbee and AdrianB38.
davidtdonnelly316
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 10:45 pm


Return to General research queries


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron