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 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

> > > > 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