Hi Liz The vast majority of dates of birth I have found to be accurate in the 1939, I guess experiences will vary, from place to place, area to area and enumerator to enumerator What we see online in the 1939 are the enumerators transcriptions, so plenty of room for errors to creep in The original schedule may well have been correct as it was checked on the spot to issue identity cards, then the schedule was transcribed onto the pages we see online, and with little time to do it corners may have been cut by way of double checking Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 12-May-18 4:15 PM, Liz via DERBYSGEN wrote: > Hi Marie > > You are not the only one to notice the difference in several of the birth > dates in the 1939 registration. I've been looking at it through FMP for > several years now and it's extremely frustrating, especially when you know > the date you have is 100% accurate. > Liz

I've noticed date errors, too -- by 10 years and more! But in at least one case, the error is actually not a transcription error; the original entry matches the transcription. I've no idea what happened there. I see the original registration entry. Maybe the limited view is if you aren't an Ancestry subscriber? Carolyn Carolyn Hastings Madison AL, and sometimes Clinton Ma and Norfolk, VA On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 10:52 AM, Nivard Ovington <ovington.one@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Liz > > The vast majority of dates of birth I have found to be accurate in the > 1939, I guess experiences will vary, from place to place, area to area and > enumerator to enumerator > > What we see online in the 1939 are the enumerators transcriptions, so > plenty of room for errors to creep in > > The original schedule may well have been correct as it was checked on the > spot to issue identity cards, then the schedule was transcribed onto the > pages we see online, and with little time to do it corners may have been > cut by way of double checking > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK)

I just found another strange apparent mistake. This time it’s a record that should have been blocked but which is visible. The lady in question was 3 in 1939 ! Her record was clearly marked as “below school age”. It’s visible along with her married name. We had a look to see if she had died but found nothing so I won’t give her name. Peter > >

Hi Peter Just because you can't find her proof of death does not mean she didn't pass away For example, if someone was in England in 1939 and appears as say three, but she died in Scotland, there would not be proof of her death in England But if a researcher provided that proof by a Scottish death cert, the record could be opened, there is no indication on the opened record to show why it was opened That is not to say there are mistakes in the opening of records, there are Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 12-May-18 8:31 PM, Peter Lee wrote: > I just found another strange apparent mistake. This time it’s a record that should have been blocked but which is visible. The lady in question was 3 in 1939 ! Her record was clearly marked as “below school age”. It’s visible along with her married name. > We had a look to see if she had died but found nothing so I won’t give her name. > Peter

I can give you an earlier one than that - my husband (very much still alive !) was born on 3rd September 1939 and is shown clearly on the 1939 Register living with his parents in Derby !! Prunella. From: Peter Lee Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 8:31 PM To: Derbyshire genealogy Subject: [DBY]Re: 1939 Registration I just found another strange apparent mistake. This time it’s a record that should have been blocked but which is visible. The lady in question was 3 in 1939 ! Her record was clearly marked as “below school age”. It’s visible along with her married name. We had a look to see if she had died but found nothing so I won’t give her name. Peter

Keep in mind that the images we see online are in themselves transcripts Transcripts of the household schedules, each time information is transcribed it leaves room for errors to creep in And some "errors" are the individuals giving the information, wanting to appear younger or older or whatever they wished to be known Most though gave true information as their identity cards and ration books were based on it Unsure what you mean by limited view? Everyone will see the same thing Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 12-May-18 8:11 PM, Carolyn Hastings wrote: > I've noticed date errors, too -- by 10 years and more! But in at least one > case, the error is actually not a transcription error; the original entry > matches the transcription. I've no idea what happened there. > > I see the original registration entry. Maybe the limited view is if you > aren't an Ancestry subscriber? > > Carolyn

Sorry, Nigel, I had thought that the images reflected the original record. Nowhere does it say that it is a transcription, so I'm glad for the clarification. Carolyn Carolyn Hastings Madison AL On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Nivard Ovington <ovington.one@gmail.com> wrote: > Keep in mind that the images we see online are in themselves transcripts > > Transcripts of the household schedules, each time information is > transcribed it leaves room for errors to creep in > > And some "errors" are the individuals giving the information, wanting to > appear younger or older or whatever they wished to be known > > Most though gave true information as their identity cards and ration books > were based on it > > Unsure what you mean by limited view? > > Everyone will see the same thing > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > >