On 03/11/2015 10:55, Brian Austin via wrote: > I also understand that someone has already complained to Trading Standards > because her last invitation to renew said (as did mine) that her membership > would include all British records and now she is asked to pay for the > Register. > > Brian Austin > > I doubt it will do them any good at all seeing as it clearly states on the FMP terms and conditions "Sometimes, if we launch a major new collection, we might make a separate charge for it, but this is rare." The terms have stated this since at least 10 April 2014 according to the Internet Archive. Cheers Guy

On 02/11/2015 17:40, stainless via wrote: > Just wondered if anyone could offer some ideas as to the following initial anomalies I have spotted: > > 1. It appears my father's record is closed for both searching and viewing on the transcriptions/images. He was born in 1930, so I thought it might be because he was thought to be possibly still alive (which he isn't). However, my mother, who was 8 at the time (born in 1931), is searchable and on the images, so her record is not closed. Any ideas why? > > 2. Now for a really strange situation for my mother's entry. She is with her family and recorded, obviously, with her maiden name, as she was only 8 years old. She did not marry until 1954. However, above her name on the image, in her name box, her married surname has been added. So this looks like the entry was updated after 1954. There is no logical reason for the correct marriage name to be known in 1939 (time travel was yet to be invented...). How could her married name have been added so much later and why? > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENBRIT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > . > The NHS used this register until 1991 and updated it as time went on. That is why those people who died between 1939 and 1991 should be open, but as with anything to do with the NHS mistakes can and are made. Updates include change of name on marriage (or other reasons) Those of you who have looked on my website (I gave the url earlier may have noticed that the NHS provided details for Nellie Hitcox,**Female, age23,Housemaidwho was single, however she is redacted on the FMP image. Cheers Guy

On 02/11/2015 16:34, eve@varneys.org.uk wrote: >> The 1939 National registration will be released on Monday the 2nd November >> Cost £6.95 per household or £24.95 for their 5 household bundle (£4.99 >> per household) > Congratulations on your sterling work in getting this through, Guy. Pity it > RCHwent to FMP, though. Bad search engine, bad indexing - VERY bad > response (i.e. none) to legitimate enquiries. > > > > EVE > > Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians > Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society > > . > Thanks Eve. The contract went to FMP as Anscestry would not take the huge risk to digitise, transcribe & index the Register. I don't know if you remember Ancestry dropped out of the 18911 contract when they worked out how much it would cost them and the risk they would have to take. FMP at least had the courage in their convictions and took the risk. Cheers Guy

On 02/11/2015 14:44, Roger Mills via wrote: > On 02/11/2015 04:54, Bob Campbell via wrote: >> Do the transcripts for this survey indicate a year of death? >> I do have an Alice Pike who has her birth year missing on the >> transcript, but I already know this to be 1895 and have her listed with >> Adelaide Wiltshire on the electoral roll for the same year, from a >> search going back many years. >> However I have over recent years failed to find Alice's death >> registration. As these records were taken over by the NHS would these >> also indicate a year of death? >> cheers >> Bob > I wouldn't have thought so. ICBW but my impression is that you'll get > the register entry as it was in 1939 for the people living at the time. > If she died prior to that, she wouldn't be on it. If she died after > that, her date of death wouldn't be known in 1939 unless the person > compiling the record was clairvoyant. A very few entries do have the date of death but not very many. Apparently on the second page (not available to the public) entries were marked with the letter D if the person was deceased, this was made available to FMP to open entries which otherwise would be redacted. Cheers Guy

On 02/11/2015 06:33, Geoff Pearson via wrote: > I've looked in the new register for my mother (b1921) and grandmother > (b1897) and not found them. I've not paid for anything yet. Anyone getting > greater success? > > Geoff > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENBRIT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > . > Yes I downloaded the entry that I requested from the NHS in 2008 both the NHS transcript and the Digital image from FMP is now online at *http://tinyurl.com/yamy9hb* Scroll to the bottom of the page for the household image Cheers Guy

On 03/11/2015 10:55, Brian Austin via wrote: > I also understand that someone has already complained to Trading Standards > because her last invitation to renew said (as did mine) that her membership > would include all British records and now she is asked to pay for the > Register. Now that's a very good point. I wonder how FMP will get around that? Do you have any further info on the complaint? It will be interesting to see how this turns out. -- Brian Pears (Gateshead)

> > > > 1. It appears my father's record is closed for both searching and > > viewing on the transcriptions/images. He was born in 1930, so I thought > > it might be because he was thought to be possibly still alive (which he > > isn't). However, my mother, who was 8 at the time (born in 1931), is > > searchable and on the images, so her record is not closed. Any ideas > > why? > > Presuming your mother is also deceased, did she died before your > father? I read somewhere that till the early1990s -not sure of that > date , the document was still a working document for some govt purpose. > Sorry, I can't for the life of me remember the details or where I read > it > > > > 2. Now for a really strange situation for my mother's entry. She is > > with her family and recorded, obviously, with her maiden name, as she > > was only 8 years old. She did not marry until 1954. However, above her > > name on the image, in her name box, her married surname has been added. > > So this looks like the entry was updated after 1954. There is no > > logical reason for the correct marriage name to be known in 1939 (time > > travel was yet to be invented...). How could her married name have been > > added so much later and why? > > see above, if a govt dept was referring to this document for whatever > reason it may have been annotated at a much later date. Have you viewed > the image? if her married name is in different writing or doesn't look > like part of the original form completion then I'd guess that its been > amended/annotated much later You could imagine an update on her record for DWP (or prior official equivallnet, since anything like Family Allowances would be paid to her in that name, as they occurred. (I have no idea of Fam Allowances were paid to couples who were not married? Presumably they must have been, since they were for the child/ren. This entry presumably was helpful if she then retained that married name, didn't do a Zsa Zsa Gabor. The mysterious workings (or not) of the civil Service . As someone said, this particular set of records will be superfluous to the many, though vital for the few, where family upheavals have concealed relatively modern information. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

On Saturday, 16 January 2010 10:06:21 UTC+11, Di Mort wrote: > Having searched awhile on line and not found anything further, would anyone > know if there are later records for Devon published > beyond 1509? eg to 1600 (book or fiche perhaps) > I see extracts here as listed on Genuki Devon site > Devon Feet of Fines (Land Conveyances) for 1369-1509 > > Many thanks > Di Update 2015: WOW, my earlier messages are still there about Feet of Fines in Devon. Thought I'd post, in 2015 that using 'Discovery' at Nat. Archives Kew typing Feet of Fines, I got a record of an ancestor's (John Mortimer, d1604)'s Complaint re claim for 'messuage' in Priorton 1570, against one Gilbert Phillip and wife Mawd. Maud was John M's mother, and had remarried. Land nearby called East Oxen Parke was also in dispute. 4 pages were sent for, 35 pounds approx, and transcribed very well by group on Isle of Man. Progress! Also Google Earth will show me down the road..no airfares needed.things have progressed too regarding Devon keeping it's cards 'close'...Devon Wills Index for a start, many thanks to Brian Randall and co, and getting a lot of information together at the newly named Devon Heritage Center.

> > I have been wondering about 'how' it was / is checked to see if the > person has since died and info can be released. > Maybe its something as simple as checking the GRO deaths index? In > which case deaths prior to Q2 1969 (especially if it was a fairly > common name) may not be so easily released as the index only gave an > age at death. After Q2 1969 the index contained d.o.b. info so that > may have influenced releasing records. ? > I've sent off a death cert to FMP to request the release of a redacted > record, but we all know the scenario where names were common and > birth/death indexes can produce 2 or 3 in roughly the right year and > quarter. > -- It is comparatively east to find a male with an uncommon name who has stuck to his original registered name. But a man with a common name, a man who has died abroad or one who has added, subtracted or inverted names, or even one where wrong age at death information is given, may not be easy. And a woman who has lost her original name by marriage, married twice, altered her forename/s, altered her age/ married or died abroad, must be very difficult indeed to follow. And I have no confidence in FMP's ability even to do the simpler tasks involved. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

I think the best way to regard this is that although they call it the 1939 Register, it is in reality the original register as amended in later years for DWP/NHS reasons - which is why many women are shown in their place of residence in 1939 but under the names that they subsequently acquired on marriage. It also seems to be the case that they have redacted anyone born after 1915 who had not subsequently died and whose record has been shown as such by the system. Quite why this has not been explained at the outset is yet another example of FMP's poor administration - I will forbear to go into the saga of my last renewal. I also understand that someone has already complained to Trading Standards because her last invitation to renew said (as did mine) that her membership would include all British records and now she is asked to pay for the Register. Brian Austin -----Original Message----- From: genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tickettyboo via Sent: 02 November 2015 23:37 To: genbrit@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: 1939 survey includes date of death? Alice PIKE at Edmonton On 2015-11-02 17:21:00 +0000, johnfhhgen via said: > On 02/11/2015 2:44 PM, Roger Mills via wrote: >> On 02/11/2015 04:54, Bob Campbell via wrote: >>> Do the transcripts for this survey indicate a year of death? >>> I do have an Alice Pike who has her birth year missing on the >>> transcript, but I already know this to be 1895 and have her listed >>> with Adelaide Wiltshire on the electoral roll for the same year, >>> from a search going back many years. >>> However I have over recent years failed to find Alice's death >>> registration. As these records were taken over by the NHS would >>> these also indicate a year of death? >>> cheers >>> Bob >> I wouldn't have thought so. ICBW but my impression is that you'll get >> the register entry as it was in 1939 for the people living at the time. >> If she died prior to that, she wouldn't be on it. If she died after >> that, her date of death wouldn't be known in 1939 unless the person >> compiling the record was clairvoyant. > Roger, > AFAIK there is evidence that the original register as scanned has been > updated. For example, my mother has had her married (1947) name added > and maiden name reduced to within brackets () in the index. Nor has > she been redacted (b.1917) so presumably her death (1977) noted. > Cannot remember when the cut-off date is, but someone here will know - > it may be in the FAQ on the site. One would have expected deaths to > have been entered, at least until the end of rationing and of > National Identity cards. > > That said, where the date or fact of death *has* been entered in the > register, one would expect the entry line to no longer be redacted, > and my mother's case would seem to confirm this. > > Regards, > John Henley I have been wondering about 'how' it was / is checked to see if the person has since died and info can be released. Maybe its something as simple as checking the GRO deaths index? In which case deaths prior to Q2 1969 (especially if it was a fairly common name) may not be so easily released as the index only gave an age at death. After Q2 1969 the index contained d.o.b. info so that may have influenced releasing records. ? I've sent off a death cert to FMP to request the release of a redacted record, but we all know the scenario where names were common and birth/death indexes can produce 2 or 3 in roughly the right year and quarter. -- Tickettyboo ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GENBRIT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Roger, I was maybe assuming. wrongly it seems, as these 1939 records were used by the NHS post WW2 perhaps the death record (date) of those on it would be added shortly afterwards, so that the person no longer received the state pension, WW2 ration books, NHS registration etc. If these registration records were not regularly updated, then there may be duplicate set(s), painstakingly copied and based on these from 1939, which were updated and would be held by whom or where? For future purposes I guess the reference number at the base of the preview transcription, may be very important, should further and similar databases and transcriptions be published?? This could be very handy when attempting to find the correct death registration for a very common surname after 1939. Regarding the other 1939 query, if you read the info on Findmypast.com whether or not a person is closed or not on the transcription/image is automatically opened on the 100 year anniversary of their birth, in my case parents born 1927/1928 won't be seen till 2027/2028, unless I come up with a copy of their respective death certificates, I doubt if I will be around to see it! Cheers from Bob From: Roger Mills Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:44 AM To: genbrit@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: 1939 survey includes date of death? Alice PIKE at Edmonton On 02/11/2015 04:54, Bob Campbell via wrote: > Do the transcripts for this survey indicate a year of death? > I do have an Alice Pike who has her birth year missing on the > transcript, but I already know this to be 1895 and have her listed with > Adelaide Wiltshire on the electoral roll for the same year, from a > search going back many years. > However I have over recent years failed to find Alice's death > registration. As these records were taken over by the NHS would these > also indicate a year of death? > cheers > Bob I wouldn't have thought so. ICBW but my impression is that you'll get the register entry as it was in 1939 for the people living at the time. If she died prior to that, she wouldn't be on it. If she died after that, her date of death wouldn't be known in 1939 unless the person compiling the record was clairvoyant. -- Cheers, Roger

Had a quick look at 1939 record and managed to match up several entries,where you are given the town and number of other people,with the 1932 electoral register on FMP. Nick

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:02:49 +0000, Brian Pears via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> wrote: >On 02/11/2015 17:46, Tickettyboo via wrote: >> see above, if a govt dept was referring to this document for whatever >> reason it may have been annotated at a much later date. Have you viewed >> the image? if her married name is in different writing or doesn't look >> like part of the original form completion then I'd guess that its been >> amended/annotated much later > >Somewhere (I can't now find it) on the FindMyPast site it >states that names were updated until 1991. > That was about 4 years before the current 10-digit numbers were introduced so possibly when the transfer process started which would have made updating of old-style records already converted to the new system an increasing waste of effort. >What I find strange is that records I previously accessed >from the NHS Centre for my parents (who were both born in >1919) are still redacted on the FindMyPast data. The NHS >staff obviously knew that they were both deceased, so I >assumed that there must have been some indication of that >added to the register - but apparently that's not the case. >It seems strange that they would amend names in the register >right up to 1991, yet not add some annotation indicating >such a basic event as death.

On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 02:59:43 +1000, Bob Campbell via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> wrote: >Roger, >I was maybe assuming. wrongly it seems, as these 1939 records were used by >the NHS post WW2 perhaps the death record (date) of those on it would be >added shortly afterwards, so that the person no longer received the state >pension, > Not a matter for the NHS, in 1948 it would have been the Ministry of Pensions. Adding a note of the death would make the person a historic entity and e.g. rule them out from being a match to someone of similar identity who for one reason or another missed being issued with a NR/NHS number such as those who might have spent many years abroad or had lived in a household packed with SMITHs. Currently when a death is registered the registrar sends a form to the DWP which advises them of the death so that pension payment can cease. The need to tell the NHS is less urgent unless one of our paranoid government ministers anticipates hordes of foreigners impersonating deceased UK citizens to get free treatment. When my mother died, the message clearly hadn't reached the local hospital via the NHS records as a nurse called six months later to check up on her condition (visiting the hospital had not been a certainty). >WW2 ration books, > Food Office ? >NHS registration etc. > The connection was ITYF more the existence of a convenient list from which the three health services could provide the foundations for their own sets of records. There was otherwise no connection between the various different government departments' lists of people that they dealt with. Even now, attempts to set up a universal set of identification have failed repeatedly. >If these registration records were not regularly updated, then there may be >duplicate set(s), painstakingly copied and based on these from 1939, which >were updated and would be held by whom or where? >For future purposes I guess the reference number at the base of the preview >transcription, may be very important, should further and similar databases >and transcriptions be published?? >This could be very handy when attempting to find the correct death >registration for a very common surname after 1939. >Regarding the other 1939 query, if you read the info on Findmypast.com >whether or not a person is closed or not on the transcription/image is >automatically opened on the 100 year anniversary of their birth, in my case >parents born 1927/1928 won't be seen till 2027/2028, unless I come up with a >copy of their respective death certificates, I doubt if I will be around to >see it! > > > >Cheers from >Bob > >From: Roger Mills >Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 12:44 AM >To: genbrit@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: 1939 survey includes date of death? Alice PIKE at Edmonton > >On 02/11/2015 04:54, Bob Campbell via wrote: >> Do the transcripts for this survey indicate a year of death? >> I do have an Alice Pike who has her birth year missing on the >> transcript, but I already know this to be 1895 and have her listed with >> Adelaide Wiltshire on the electoral roll for the same year, from a >> search going back many years. >> However I have over recent years failed to find Alice's death >> registration. As these records were taken over by the NHS would these >> also indicate a year of death? >> cheers >> Bob > >I wouldn't have thought so. ICBW but my impression is that you'll get >the register entry as it was in 1939 for the people living at the time. >If she died prior to that, she wouldn't be on it. If she died after >that, her date of death wouldn't be known in 1939 unless the person >compiling the record was clairvoyant.

On 2015-11-02 17:21:00 +0000, johnfhhgen via said: > On 02/11/2015 2:44 PM, Roger Mills via wrote: >> On 02/11/2015 04:54, Bob Campbell via wrote: >>> Do the transcripts for this survey indicate a year of death? >>> I do have an Alice Pike who has her birth year missing on the >>> transcript, but I already know this to be 1895 and have her listed with >>> Adelaide Wiltshire on the electoral roll for the same year, from a >>> search going back many years. >>> However I have over recent years failed to find Alice's death >>> registration. As these records were taken over by the NHS would these >>> also indicate a year of death? >>> cheers >>> Bob >> I wouldn't have thought so. ICBW but my impression is that you'll get >> the register entry as it was in 1939 for the people living at the time. >> If she died prior to that, she wouldn't be on it. If she died after >> that, her date of death wouldn't be known in 1939 unless the person >> compiling the record was clairvoyant. > Roger, > AFAIK there is evidence that the original register as scanned has been > updated. For example, my mother has had her married (1947) name added > and maiden name reduced to within brackets () in the index. Nor has she > been redacted (b.1917) so presumably her death (1977) noted. > Cannot remember when the cut-off date is, but someone here will know - > it may be in the FAQ on the site. One would have expected deaths to > have been entered, at least until the end of rationing and of National > Identity cards. > > That said, where the date or fact of death *has* been entered in the > register, one would expect the entry line to no longer be redacted, and > my mother's case would seem to confirm this. > > Regards, > John Henley I have been wondering about 'how' it was / is checked to see if the person has since died and info can be released. Maybe its something as simple as checking the GRO deaths index? In which case deaths prior to Q2 1969 (especially if it was a fairly common name) may not be so easily released as the index only gave an age at death. After Q2 1969 the index contained d.o.b. info so that may have influenced releasing records. ? I've sent off a death cert to FMP to request the release of a redacted record, but we all know the scenario where names were common and birth/death indexes can produce 2 or 3 in roughly the right year and quarter. -- Tickettyboo

On 02/11/2015 17:46, Tickettyboo via wrote: > see above, if a govt dept was referring to this document for whatever > reason it may have been annotated at a much later date. Have you viewed > the image? if her married name is in different writing or doesn't look > like part of the original form completion then I'd guess that its been > amended/annotated much later Somewhere (I can't now find it) on the FindMyPast site it states that names were updated until 1991. What I find strange is that records I previously accessed from the NHS Centre for my parents (who were both born in 1919) are still redacted on the FindMyPast data. The NHS staff obviously knew that they were both deceased, so I assumed that there must have been some indication of that added to the register - but apparently that's not the case. It seems strange that they would amend names in the register right up to 1991, yet not add some annotation indicating such a basic event as death. -- Brian Pears (Gateshead)

In message <mailman.30.1446483965.30538.genbrit@rootsweb.com>, eve via <genbrit@rootsweb.com> writes: [] >> JPG> Who did what to whom there? I don't quite follow - a vicar was >> dunked? By angry beggars, or the local people? > >Risborough. The dole had been set up and for c 150 years, the viacr's >wife/cook would bake the buns each year. The new vicar's wife was above >such things, and the vicar said it was just an excuse for gathering at the >vicarage and making an unseemly noise, so he wouldn't do it. (In an earlier >year, some lads from the next villaghe had turned up for a share and got >thumped heartily, so he had a point) The locals -even reasonably >comfortably off, regarded it as a perk and turned up anyway. When they >vicar came out to remind them the good times were over, they grabbed him >and dunked him. Among those apprehended were a couple of young >farmers, who definitely did not count as 'poor'. > Who apprehended them? [] >> The wily 'travellers' made use of this system to hitch a lift - if >> you declared your settlement as Scotland or Ireland, you might get a >> ride for several miles. One chap who lost his shirt at Aylesbury races >> declared Durham as his settlement, and got lifts most of the way to >> Doncaster Races. >> >> JPG> So presumably hadn't entirely "lost his shirt"! > >EM He conned the Aylesbury overseers into funding the first part of the >journey, and (according to descendant) boasted about getting similar hitches >on the strength of his 'pass'. I just meant, if he thought it worth his while to wangle his way to Doncaster Races, he must have had some money left to gamble there? [] >> JPG> So I remain semi-convinced that, in the majority of cases, most >> people were unable to travel more than a few miles - even if not >> destitute; journeys across the country (even without taking the danger >> of being robbed into account) being very much the preserve of the rich, >> or the single healthy person (probably male). >Some wives or wife equivalents did trail after their man, walking 90% of even >very long journeys. Soldiers' wives etc not on the strenght would >trail their >man too. You get records (QS) of women who have followed for 100 miles, (QS?) >then ditched because the baby cried or got ill. Establishing settlement and >sending the women back could get very complicated. (There was the >qquestion of whether they were married properly, for a start) I was thinking more of widows rather than separated wives - though in practice rather than theory, there probably wasn't a lot of difference. [] So basically someone suddenly widowed - by, say, death of husband in an accident (e. g. to do with his work, be it ag. lab., builder, or whatever) - and knowing she had relatives elsewhere in the country who would take her in, would have little chance of reaching them, with her children, unless they could send her quite a lot of money (and I don't know how they'd do that, safely). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The first banjo solo I played was actually just a series of mistakes. In fact it was all the mistakes I knew at the time. - Tim Dowling, RT2015/6/20-26

On 2015-11-02 20:00:36 +0000, stainless said: > On Monday, 2 November 2015 17:46:10 UTC, Tickettyboo wrote: >> On 2015-11-02 17:40:20 +0000, stainless said: >> >>> Just wondered if anyone could offer some ideas as to the following> > >>> initial anomalies I have spotted: >>> >>> 1. It appears my father's record is closed for both searching and> > >>> viewing on the transcriptions/images. He was born in 1930, so I >>> thought> > it might be because he was thought to be possibly still >>> alive (which he> > isn't). However, my mother, who was 8 at the time >>> (born in 1931), is> > searchable and on the images, so her record is >>> not closed. Any ideas> > why? >> >> Presuming your mother is also deceased, did she died before your> >> father? I read somewhere that till the early1990s -not sure of that> >> date , the document was still a working document for some govt >> purpose.> Sorry, I can't for the life of me remember the details or >> where I read> it >>> >>> 2. Now for a really strange situation for my mother's entry. She is> > >>> with her family and recorded, obviously, with her maiden name, as she> >>> > was only 8 years old. She did not marry until 1954. However, above >>> her> > name on the image, in her name box, her married surname has been >>> added.> > So this looks like the entry was updated after 1954. There is >>> no> > logical reason for the correct marriage name to be known in 1939 >>> (time> > travel was yet to be invented...). How could her married name >>> have been> > added so much later and why? >> >> see above, if a govt dept was referring to this document for whatever> >> reason it may have been annotated at a much later date. Have you >> viewed> the image? if her married name is in different writing or >> doesn't look> like part of the original form completion then I'd guess >> that its been> amended/annotated much later >> -- >> Tickettyboo > > My mother is still alive oh pleased about that :-) > so not sure why she is shown (personally I am pleased she is as there > is nothing requiring secrecy regarding her entry - however does make me > wonder if there are entries for other living people who would rather > not have their info available). However, the fact that this was deemed > a working document will explain why her married name was later > annotated. I did forget to mention that the handwriting for the > original entry and her married name were different. > > Cheers Well, as with all things there are errors and mistakes. It really can't be helped I suppose, whenever rules are made then errors happen that contravene them, but on the whole, like your Mum, people don't usually mind too much -- Tickettyboo

On 02/11/2015 5:40 PM, stainless via wrote: > Just wondered if anyone could offer some ideas as to the following initial anomalies I have spotted: > > 1. It appears my father's record is closed for both searching and viewing on the transcriptions/images. He was born in 1930, so I thought it might be because he was thought to be possibly still alive (which he isn't). However, my mother, who was 8 at the time (born in 1931), is searchable and on the images, so her record is not closed. Any ideas why? If your mother is still alive, then possibly the annotation of your father's death was ambiguously placed in the register, or against the wrong name. If both deceased, did your father die later than your mother, in which case he presumably died after they ceased updating the original register, and she whilst it was still being done. > 2. Now for a really strange situation for my mother's entry. She is with her family and recorded, obviously, with her maiden name, as she was only 8 years old. She did not marry until 1954. However, above her name on the image, in her name box, her married surname has been added. So this looks like the entry was updated after 1954. There is no logical reason for the correct marriage name to be known in 1939 (time travel was yet to be invented...). How could her married name have been added so much later and why? > As noted elsewhere, the original register continued to be updated until ??? Regards, John Henley

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:46:08 +0000, Tickettyboo <tickettyboo@mail2oops.com> wrote: >On 2015-11-02 17:40:20 +0000, stainless said: > >> Just wondered if anyone could offer some ideas as to the following >> initial anomalies I have spotted: >> >> 1. It appears my father's record is closed for both searching and >> viewing on the transcriptions/images. He was born in 1930, so I thought >> it might be because he was thought to be possibly still alive (which he >> isn't). However, my mother, who was 8 at the time (born in 1931), is >> searchable and on the images, so her record is not closed. Any ideas >> why? > >Presuming your mother is also deceased, did she died before your >father? I read somewhere that till the early1990s -not sure of that >date , the document was still a working document for some govt purpose. >Sorry, I can't for the life of me remember the details or where I read >it >> >> 2. Now for a really strange situation for my mother's entry. She is >> with her family and recorded, obviously, with her maiden name, as she >> was only 8 years old. She did not marry until 1954. However, above her >> name on the image, in her name box, her married surname has been added. >> So this looks like the entry was updated after 1954. There is no >> logical reason for the correct marriage name to be known in 1939 (time >> travel was yet to be invented...). How could her married name have been >> added so much later and why? > To update her NHS record with her married surname if the National Registration list was still in active use or if no longer used as a primary source then to keep it in sync with the NHS register. >see above, if a govt dept was referring to this document for whatever >reason it may have been annotated at a much later date. Have you viewed >the image? if her married name is in different writing or doesn't look >like part of the original form completion then I'd guess that its been >amended/annotated much later