On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 14:44:20 +0000, Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> 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? > IMU all the NHS systems "took over" in effect was the list of names and ID card numbers card from the National Registration system to enable the initial allocation of NHS numbers. The original records would then have served no more purpose unless there was some reason for reverifying a person. Subsequent NHS numbers in England were based on birth registration records, the register entry number becoming the numerical part of the NHS number. > >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 17:40:20 +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

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

> > > [] > > >>>>> as would their owners. Various religious establishments, and some > > >>>>> secular ones, had a tradition of the travellers' dole whereby genuine > > >>>>> travellers would get free food and water. The Hospice at St Cross, > > >>>> > > >>>> Were there enough of these establishments that a practically penniless > > >>>> person could actually make a long journey? > > >>> > > >> [] > > I expect the following question probably can't be answered, as I suspect > > the majority of the sort of people I'm thinking of would be illiterate - > > or, at least, not be in a position to either keep a diary or get it > > published. But I'll ask anyway: > > > > are there actual accounts of people travelling long distances (say, over > > 200 miles), relying entirely on these establishments? Especially with a > > large number of children? > > In mediaeval times, the religious houses did provide for travellers. To > a limited extent, the parish/churchwardens took over this function, > usually where hefty travellers were involved (pay them 4d or 6d to go > away). > But weaker 'sturdy beggars' tended to be whipped to shift them. There > were local charity funded 'doles' but usually limited to one day a month > or even year, and jealously guarded by the local more or less poor. [A > vicar charged with an annual dole of buns and pies locally decided > enough was enough, and got thrown in the horsepond for it]. > > 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'. > > However, if a person was found begging/destitute in parish A, there was > usually an investigation to discover the place of settlement (B) . Once > this was established, theperson was given a pass from A to B, which > allowed him to move from parish to parish (in a direct line) without > being whipped, and usually being given either food or a few pence to > keep moving. They were referred to as 'passengers', hence someone who > died and was buried as a passenger was not someone off a coach. Some > parishes (?Offley Herts) became known as generous, so tramps made > extensive detours to get the benefits (like the economic migrants today) > On main roads, the traveller problem sometimes got menacing, so > counties employed 'cripple contractors' [so called because some people > were lame, some faking lameness for sympathy], who loaded a bunch of > travellers into a waggon and dumped them further up the road, ideally > into the next county. > 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'. > > In many cases, farmers or cottagers were kind enough to allow a > night in a barn and supply a bit of food, especially if there was a > family with children. So again, wily travellers borrowed a few children, > pinched them to make them cry, and got food that way. (The Roma do it > now in London streets). Of course, there were genuine paupers on the > roads, needing help,sometimes widows set adrift because their husbands > had been settled far away, but a lot were exploiting the system and did > rather better than the genuine cases, lacking shame. > > JPG> So the genuine widow - with, likely in those days, a gaggle of > children - would have a hard time of it. > > > -- EVE Yes, though kind people on the way might have thrown the odd bun and cup of milk their way. The dodgy ones took the money and stayed put, or close by. > [] > 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, 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) > EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

nusual amount of time to collect and write up a report of info > 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) > > Cheers Guy > > ------------------------------- > 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 Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society

> 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

On 2015-10-30 14:39:56 +0000, Guy Etchells via said: > On 28/10/2015 15:03, Tim Powys-Lybbe via wrote: >> On 27/10/2015 4:02 p.m., Anne Sherman wrote: >>> Find My Past have just announced that the 1939 register will be >>> available on from Monday 2nd November 2015. >>> >>> Records will be available to purchase for £6.95 per household, or >>> £24.95 for a 5 household bundle (£4.99 per household). It seems a >>> bit pricey but they did put a lot of work into it. >>> >>> Findmypast subscribers will be entitled to a discount. >> I was wondering about that discount but did not see anything on the >> announcement I received from FMP. >> >> FindMypast also got the 1911 census contract and set up a company to >> market and charge for this. The charges were on a piece basis with >> various discounts for quantity. >> >> I think that 1911-only site is only now being wound up. But very soon >> FMP added 1911 census access to their normal subscriptions, as have >> other genealogy data providers. >> >> What I wonder is how long it will be before FMP add the 1939 exercise to >> their normal FMP data subscription. As a potential customer of that >> data, I am happy not to buy access in a piecemeal fashion and await the >> merge into the full subscription. >> >> Who knows any more? >> > I believe the contract is until 31/3/2024 with potential to extend for > 4 further periods of 5 years each but the is no detail about > exclusivity on the on line tender docs. > > I am not sure but think the 1911 carried a 5 year exclusivity period > (from the time it went on line) and would assume a similar period for > this. > > If that is the case I would suggest that it would be around the 3 year > mark before it became part of the subscription site and a further 2 > years or so before other on line companies could gain access to it. > > Cheers > > Guy I think the exclusivity period for the 1911 must have been shorter than 5 years as Ancestry had images online in 2011. -- Tickettyboo

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

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 ____________ Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom checked.

On 2015-11-02 10:57:28 +0000, Tickettyboo said: > There does seem to be a system wherby you can ask for the record to be > opened - on production of a death cert which is ok for me in this case > as I have it and, as I am nosey, I have started the process to test out requesting a record to be opened. I used the facility on the page to send a copy death cert and further details to FMP as per their instructions. So far that has resulted in a confirmation of submission screen which says it will be reviewed and they aim to process the request within 10 working days starting from tomorrow. <quote> You have successfully submitted the Evidence of death form Thank you for submitting your request for this officially closed record to be opened. If successful, the record will be opened and made public. Your request will now be reviewed by our dedicated evidence-checking team. We aim to process all requests and send you confirmation of the outcome, or to obtain further information or evidence, within 10 working days, starting the working day after your request being submitted. We are unable to provide updates on the progress of a request. In the unlikely event you haven’t received an email after 10 working days, please email support@findmypast.co.uk Please visit our Frequently Asked Questions page for more information. Please print this page for your records. </quote> I await the decision with interest but have decided its prudent not to hold my breath :-) -- Tickettyboo

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 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

On 02/11/2015 10:48, brightside S9 wrote: > On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 23:05:57 -0800 (PST), melanie chesnel > <mellychesnel@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 7:33:20 AM UTC+1, Geoff Pearson 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 >> >> tried both my parents and they don't come up either! >> regards melanie > > Ditto, but strangely my aunt born 1908 is listed under her married > name, with maiden name in brackets. However she did not marry until > 1944. She was living throughout the war with her parents and her > future husband was not living with them. > Just looked up my grandfather, he is where I expected with 2 others plus 3 closed. The latter will be my father and his brother and sister. One of the additional people would be my grandmother but I wonder who the other is, there are several candidates, his step-mother or sister-in-law perhaps. Damn, this is likely to cost me money :-) -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

On 2015-11-02 06:33:27 +0000, Geoff Pearson said: > 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 I have just searched for my paternal granda. I know who lived in the house. Granda (b1901), Grama (b1897) Dad (b1923) and 2 G Aunts (b1898 and 1900) All of these people are now dead. My Dad died in 1968, his details are redacted, so that answers my wonderings about whether or not any checking has been done to decide whether or not to redact names. If they haven't opened his record when he's been dead now for 47 years its unlikely that people who died more recently will be in the open record category. There does seem to be a system wherby you can ask for the record to be opened - on production of a death cert which is ok for me in this case as I have it, but expensive for the scenario of my maternal granda's household where none of the children (7 - all of whom are now dead) are listed as closed records. The good news is that, having paid to see the image, I got the entire page so have info about the neighbours, some of which were extended family. -- Tickettyboo

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?

"Peter T" wrote in message news:MPG.30a12345cc86cba89896d2@News.Individual.Net... In article <6844eb0b-bbab-4b56-a0c2-f97bece0e849@googlegroups.com>, mellychesnel@gmail.com says... > > tried my maternal grand father and he comes up in Luton with only one > other person on the record, where as there were 4 people in the > household - Mum, Dad and 2 children - so I don't think children are > recorded. I didn't pay to see the record but I 'm pretty sure it is the > right one > >I don't think children will be shown under the 100 year rule,at least that's what I'm assuming as I'm not included,born 1938 -- >Pete An uncle born in 1914 shows but not his wife born in 1915.

I have a friend with the middle name KEZIA. She is not Jewish although it is a Hebrew name. The meaning is: Kezia Hebrew From the Cassia tree, a variety of cinnamon. -----Original Message----- From: genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:genbrit-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of David Garwes via Sent: Saturday, 31 October, 2015 10:37 AM To: genbrit@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: Keziah as a first name On Saturday, April 8, 2000 at 8:00:00 AM UTC+1, Monica Drake wrote: > I just found my husband's greatgrandmother had a sister named Keziah > Emma Pickett. I have never heard this first name before, has anyone > else? Any ideas what nationality it is from? Her mother's maiden name > was Robinson, which could prove hard to track. Hoping the unusual > first name will give me a lead as to where her family was from. > > Monica Hi Monica. I guess 15 years is a long time and you may not be reading this post, but I was looking for my maternal grandmother who was Emma Kezia Pickett and found your enquiry. On the off chance they are one and the same, do you know whether your Kezia Emma was married? Mine was born in 1870 and married Albert Henry Perkins on 17 May 1907. I don't know her family history, which is why I was searching. Thanks David ------------------------------- 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7163 / Virus Database: 4457/10930 - Release Date: 11/01/15

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:03:51 AM UTC+1, Geoff Pearson wrote: > "Peter T" wrote in message > news:MPG.30a12345cc86cba89896d2@News.Individual.Net... > > In article <6844eb0b-bbab-4b56-a0c2-f97bece0e849@googlegroups.com>, > mellychesnel@gmail.com says... > > > > tried my maternal grand father and he comes up in Luton with only one > > other person on the record, where as there were 4 people in the > > household - Mum, Dad and 2 children - so I don't think children are > > recorded. I didn't pay to see the record but I 'm pretty sure it is the > > right one > > > > >I don't think children will be shown under the 100 year rule,at least > that's what I'm assuming as I'm not included,born 1938 > > -- > >Pete > > An uncle born in 1914 shows but not his wife born in 1915. Interesting - as I said on the other thread dealing with this subject, I can't see FMP making much money here, particularly if you can't get to see the details of half the household and the searchable index seems to be missing some people, particularly wives. In my case it isn't a problem, all I have to do is Skype my mum or dad and they can give me the details, they were after all there. There is no reason for me to pay to see either of my grandparents' households. I haven't checked any of my great grand parents alive in 1939, only 3 out of the 4 housholds. What info is on the register that I am unlikely to have already from the 1911 census? As Ticketyboo points out below you get to see the neighbors so the info will be useful to historians researching local history rather than geneology. regards melanie

In article <6844eb0b-bbab-4b56-a0c2-f97bece0e849@googlegroups.com>, mellychesnel@gmail.com says... > > tried my maternal grand father and he comes up in Luton with only one other person on the record, where as there were 4 people in the household - Mum, Dad and 2 children - so I don't think children are recorded. I didn't pay to see the record but I 'm pretty sure it is the right one > I don't think children will be shown under the 100 year rule,at least that's what I'm assuming as I'm not included,born 1938 -- Pete

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

On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 8:06:02 AM UTC+1, melanie chesnel wrote: > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 7:33:20 AM UTC+1, Geoff Pearson 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 > > tried both my parents and they don't come up either! > regards melanie tried my maternal grand father and he comes up in Luton with only one other person on the record, where as there were 4 people in the household - Mum, Dad and 2 children - so I don't think children are recorded. I didn't pay to see the record but I 'm pretty sure it is the right one. However, when I try his wife in the search box she isn't there, whereas she should be the second person on the entry for her husband. My other grandfather is there in a household with one other person Ref: RG101/1989A/017/19 and his wife shows up in the search on Ref: RG101/1989A/017/20 which I presume means they are in the same household as they are consecutive reference numbers regards melanie