I'm using gmail, Chrome browser, and MacBook/OS 10.6.8. Clicking "Reply" would get my message to Merryl and Sog-uk: clicking "reply all" would get the message to both of them plus Malcolm. Could different browsers and/or email programs also affect the settings at Rootsweb? Judy gen2mail @ gmail.com On 14 July 2014 21:28, Merryl Wells <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> wrote: > From > Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. > E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org > GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. > > In reply to Malcolm: The Society and other Family History Lists' Webmasters > who use Rootsweb for their messages should let Rootsweb know their members > are not happy about the changes. > > The Guild of One Name Studies have at least suggested to their Forum members > that they put their signatures at the beginning of their messages so the > reader doesn't have to hunt around to discover who the writer is, email > address so if you wish to reply you can make sure it is included, and > perhaps their surnames of interest. > > >From Merryl. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> > To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 6:34 PM > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Testing > > >> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:16:45 +0100, <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> wrote: >> Rootsweb is based (with many changes of their own) on Mailman but Mailman >> itself has had at least 10 'significant' updates since the rootsweb >> version was set up. The latest Mailman does have reasonable > Messing with >> the Reply-To header, and making messages anonymous, is a fudge to avoid >> the impact of Yahoo.com and AOL.com deciding that their customers email >> accounts should be made incompatible with the use of mailing lists. >> >> Many sites made such (anonymisation) changes a few months ago and many of >> those have updated their Mailman and re-emerged into a saner world. I'm >> presume rootsweb will do that eventually but they can't just upgrade, they >> have to re-fit all their changes. Meanwhile there is little choice but to >> grin and bear it. >> >> I'm bemused that some people think it's an imposition to expect them to >> sign their messages! >> >> = Malcolm. >> >> -- >> Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> >> GENUKI trustee <genuki@weald.org.uk> >> Pedigree User Group <chairman@pugweb.org.uk> >> Oxfordshire FHS <webmaster@ofhs.org.uk> >> FFHS Communications Officer <communications@ffhs.org.uk> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. In reply to Malcolm: The Society and other Family History Lists' Webmasters who use Rootsweb for their messages should let Rootsweb know their members are not happy about the changes. The Guild of One Name Studies have at least suggested to their Forum members that they put their signatures at the beginning of their messages so the reader doesn't have to hunt around to discover who the writer is, email address so if you wish to reply you can make sure it is included, and perhaps their surnames of interest. >From Merryl. ----- Original Message ----- From: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 6:34 PM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Testing > On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:16:45 +0100, <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> wrote: > Rootsweb is based (with many changes of their own) on Mailman but Mailman > itself has had at least 10 'significant' updates since the rootsweb > version was set up. The latest Mailman does have reasonable > Messing with > the Reply-To header, and making messages anonymous, is a fudge to avoid > the impact of Yahoo.com and AOL.com deciding that their customers email > accounts should be made incompatible with the use of mailing lists. > > Many sites made such (anonymisation) changes a few months ago and many of > those have updated their Mailman and re-emerged into a saner world. I'm > presume rootsweb will do that eventually but they can't just upgrade, they > have to re-fit all their changes. Meanwhile there is little choice but to > grin and bear it. > > I'm bemused that some people think it's an imposition to expect them to > sign their messages! > > = Malcolm. > > -- > Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> > GENUKI trustee <genuki@weald.org.uk> > Pedigree User Group <chairman@pugweb.org.uk> > Oxfordshire FHS <webmaster@ofhs.org.uk> > FFHS Communications Officer <communications@ffhs.org.uk>

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:16:45 +0100, <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> wrote: > The "From" line says "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" > The "Reply-To" line has "sog-uk@rootsweb.com", followed by the address > of the original sender. > The "To" line says "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" > This is wrong because the original sender (being on the list) will > receive any reply in duplicate It's not really 'wrong', it's a necessary fudge to avoid the fallout from DMARC in a very old version of the Mailman software. Rootsweb is based (with many changes of their own) on Mailman but Mailman itself has had at least 10 'significant' updates since the rootsweb version was set up. The latest Mailman does have reasonable (albeit imperfect because there is no perfect solution) aleviation of the effects of DMARC. > Earlier, items were sent without a "Reply-To" line. The "From" line bore > the address of the original sender, and the "To" line read > "sog-uk@rootsweb.com". Because the header also contained the information > that it was sent via a list, most mail browsers would insert > "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" as the recipient if one pressed reply, and > "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" and the original sender if one pressed reply-all. > > So how and why has an additional "Reply-To" line come to be added? Messing with the Reply-To header, and making messages anonymous, is a fudge to avoid the impact of Yahoo.com and AOL.com deciding that their customers email accounts should be made incompatible with the use of mailing lists. Many sites made such (anonymisation) changes a few months ago and many of those have updated their Mailman and re-emerged into a saner world. I'm presume rootsweb will do that eventually but they can't just upgrade, they have to re-fit all their changes. Meanwhile there is little choice but to grin and bear it. I'm bemused that some people think it's an imposition to expect them to sign their messages! = Malcolm. -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> GENUKI trustee <genuki@weald.org.uk> Pedigree User Group <chairman@pugweb.org.uk> Oxfordshire FHS <webmaster@ofhs.org.uk> FFHS Communications Officer <communications@ffhs.org.uk>

As I started this thread having read 10's of messages on the Guild of One-name studies list on this subject I am now even more confused as it might depend on the message processing within rootsweb what content is included in the From and Reply To fields in the header of the message. Or rootsweb have changed the processing back - on the 12th a message from Jeanne via the list , if I used Reply it would only have gone to Jeanne, if I used Reply all it still only went to Jeanne - so to reply to the list I would have needed to add sog-uk@rootsweb.org A quick test with recent messages appears to mean that it now works like before except the original sender (and responders to a message thread?) may get more than 1copy). Sorry for any confusion caused by the initial main (and perhaps the some list members not being aware that I am not longer involved in SoG IT) Suggest this thread is closed pending further addressing issues. Chris Chris Broomfield Broomfield, Bromfield & Brumfield One Name Study -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of sog-uk@rootsweb.com Sent: 14 July 2014 13:44 To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com; Hector Davie Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Testing - Rootsweb headings Think someone should change the Subject line. At present we see in the From Column that it has come from the Society, assume it's from the Webmaster and that they are doing a Test, so maybe some members are not reading these messages believing they are of no concern to them, don't affect them. The most annoying thing about this change of Rootsweb is that you cannot see the name of the individual who has sent the message unless you open it and scroll to the end to find their signature! From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. ----- Original Message ----- From: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Testing > The "From" line says "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" > The "Reply-To" line has "sog-uk@rootsweb.com", followed by the address > of the original sender. > The "To" line says "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" > This is wrong because the original sender (being on the list) will > receive any reply in duplicate > > Earlier, items were sent without a "Reply-To" line. The "From" line bore > the address of the original sender, and the "To" line read > "sog-uk@rootsweb.com". Because the header also contained the information > that it was sent via a list, most mail browsers would insert > "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" as the recipient if one pressed reply, and > "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" and the original sender if one pressed reply-all. > > So how and why has an additional "Reply-To" line come to be added? > > Hector Davie > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Think someone should change the Subject line. At present we see in the From Column that it has come from the Society, assume it's from the Webmaster and that they are doing a Test, so maybe some members are not reading these messages believing they are of no concern to them, don't affect them. The most annoying thing about this change of Rootsweb is that you cannot see the name of the individual who has sent the message unless you open it and scroll to the end to find their signature! From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. ----- Original Message ----- From: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 12:16 PM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Testing > The "From" line says "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" > The "Reply-To" line has "sog-uk@rootsweb.com", followed by the address > of the original sender. > The "To" line says "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" > This is wrong because the original sender (being on the list) will > receive any reply in duplicate > > Earlier, items were sent without a "Reply-To" line. The "From" line bore > the address of the original sender, and the "To" line read > "sog-uk@rootsweb.com". Because the header also contained the information > that it was sent via a list, most mail browsers would insert > "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" as the recipient if one pressed reply, and > "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" and the original sender if one pressed reply-all. > > So how and why has an additional "Reply-To" line come to be added? > > Hector Davie > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

The "From" line says "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" The "Reply-To" line has "sog-uk@rootsweb.com", followed by the address of the original sender. The "To" line says "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" This is wrong because the original sender (being on the list) will receive any reply in duplicate Earlier, items were sent without a "Reply-To" line. The "From" line bore the address of the original sender, and the "To" line read "sog-uk@rootsweb.com". Because the header also contained the information that it was sent via a list, most mail browsers would insert "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" as the recipient if one pressed reply, and "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" and the original sender if one pressed reply-all. So how and why has an additional "Reply-To" line come to be added? Hector Davie

On my tablet, using Aqua Mail, reply all includes Jeanne bunting (once) and puts in sog-uk @ rootsweb.com twice! But without the spaces I added either side of the monkeytail. Dave Beakhust On 12 July 2014 19:15:48 sog-uk@rootsweb.com wrote: > Just testing to see if the same thing has happened on this List as has > happened on another I subscribe to > > Jeanne Bunting > > Sent from my iPhone 5 > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

All a bit confusing this .... I use Mozilla Thunderbird and receive my list messages in digest format. All reply selections (reply to sender, list, all) load the standard list address as usual ( SOG-UK@rootsweb.com ). Digest has always meant tweaking things to reply to a single item in my experience but eliminates clutter so it's a fair trade-off. Perhaps there is an issue with how Outlook deals with the situation of the sender's address being different to the reply to address; i. e., SOG-UK@rootsweb.com versus SOG-UK-Request@rootsweb.com? Walt O'Dowd On 14/07/2014 08:00, sog-uk-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Testing (sog-uk@rootsweb.com) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 18:14:46 +0100 > From: sog-uk@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Testing > To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> > Cc: itsupport@sog.org.uk > Message-ID: <000601cf9ebd$f2583bb0$d708b310$@one-name.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi Folks > It appears that rootsweb has changed the way messages to lists are > processed. > > >From the issue was highlighted on the GOONs list but there if you "reply > all" it goes to both the original sender and the list note "reply" only > fills in the To: field > On the Sog list to reply to the list you have to add the list address > sog-uk@rootsweb.com in the To: or Cc: fields (well I do in Outlook2010) > > I have copied this to Chris Mappley the IT Manager who I think is now the > list administrator as there may be an admin setting to overcome this > limitation. > > Chris Broomfield > Broomfield, Bromfield & Brumfield One Name Study > > > -----Original Message----- > From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On > Behalf Of sog-uk@rootsweb.com > Sent: 12 July 2014 19:16 > To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SOG-UK] Testing > > Just testing to see if the same thing has happened on this List as has > happened on another I subscribe to > > Jeanne Bunting > > Sent from my iPhone 5 > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the SOG-UK list administrator, send an email to > SOG-UK-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the SOG-UK mailing list, send an email to SOG-UK@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > email with no additional text. > > > End of SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 96 > ************************************* >

Hi Folks It appears that rootsweb has changed the way messages to lists are processed. >From the issue was highlighted on the GOONs list but there if you "reply all" it goes to both the original sender and the list note "reply" only fills in the To: field On the Sog list to reply to the list you have to add the list address sog-uk@rootsweb.com in the To: or Cc: fields (well I do in Outlook2010) I have copied this to Chris Mappley the IT Manager who I think is now the list administrator as there may be an admin setting to overcome this limitation. Chris Broomfield Broomfield, Bromfield & Brumfield One Name Study -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of sog-uk@rootsweb.com Sent: 12 July 2014 19:16 To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Subject: [SOG-UK] Testing Just testing to see if the same thing has happened on this List as has happened on another I subscribe to Jeanne Bunting Sent from my iPhone 5 ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Jeanne, Yes! Other than the Reply and Reply All are set so you can either Reply to the person who sent the email to the List or use Reply All which includes the individual but also the Society, so presumably the person who sent the message receives the answer twice and you would have to check how you received each one before answering. Can't see who wrote the message though unless you open it, very annoying. From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. ----- Original Message ----- From: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 7:15 PM Subject: [SOG-UK] Testing > Just testing to see if the same thing has happened on this List as has > happened on another I subscribe to > > Jeanne Bunting > > Sent from my iPhone 5 > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

Hector Davie had his tongue in his cheek, but need not be too concerned over identity theft, as the new NHS numbers with no externally discernable pattern have been in use for some time, having been issued directly to the people concerned. If the NHS needs to find your number, they go on DOB, name(s), and address(es) normally, and who your last doctor was. Being able to decode wartime ID numbers neither helps nor hinders the task of finding a present day NHS number. If you told an NHS provider your old number they would not know what to do with it now. 99% of times, just knowing your old doctors details is enough to register at a new doctor, and with the scrapping of the most recent ID card scheme, there is no widespread use of an ID number, except for the National Insurance number, used for everything with a bearing on taxation. This has a date element in it but is rather fuzzy, and is not as far as I know issued at birth. On 11 July 2014 10:40:05 Hector Davie <hectord@sunrise.ch> wrote: > David Henwood has a good point - that these numbers provide a clue to > people's location in September 1939 (or to their district of birth if > born after that date). I can offer my own number, COPG256, having been > born in Guildford in the fourth quarter of 1941. I note however that on > the actual card, the letters are written separated by full stops > (C.O.P.G.), so it might not be that CO is Surrey. > > One suspects that the code is fairly easily crackable (and carries the > sinister idea of being able to generate many people's NHS numbers by > simply taking data from FreeBMD). > > Hector Davie > (And PS (pace Iago) - who steals my identity steals trash...) > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message

David Henwood has a good point - that these numbers provide a clue to people's location in September 1939 (or to their district of birth if born after that date). I can offer my own number, COPG256, having been born in Guildford in the fourth quarter of 1941. I note however that on the actual card, the letters are written separated by full stops (C.O.P.G.), so it might not be that CO is Surrey. One suspects that the code is fairly easily crackable (and carries the sinister idea of being able to generate many people's NHS numbers by simply taking data from FreeBMD). Hector Davie (And PS (pace Iago) - who steals my identity steals trash...)

Chris, Your assumptions in your NHS numbers e-mail are quite correct - your father's, your mother's and your own National Registration Numbers were those allocated on 29th September 1939 as part of a national activity - before your younger brother was born. If there was anyone staying with your family that night they would have been allocated "4" etc. The 3 digits just indicate that your household was the 116th registered in the area DEBE Looking at the letters and based on my own and my wife's Identity Cards I surmise that WBG was the Looe, Cornwall postal area and a 4th letter referred to a parish in that area. Similarly WBM was the Liskeard, Cornwall postal area. Perhaps it is therefore safe to assume WB had been allocated to the County of Cornwall. There is a mass of genealogical information in these 4 letters - where people were on 29th September 1939 - and it would have been a matter of 3 weeks after the first evacuations, and mobilisation would also have been in hand. Is there any source from which this registration information can be obtained? To build one up from scratch for the 4 letters would be a near impossible task but the first 2 letters would be relatively easy - assuming my assumption is correct - any "WB"'s would be living in Cornwall. Some larger counties may have had more than one set of letters, while small neighbouring counties may have been combined. I hope I am not being fool-hardy but I will start an index of the first 2 letters with:- WB Cornwall Any additions? - remember this refers to addresses for the registration on 29/9/1939. If people wish to give fuller information - that is the 4 letters I will index them but remember they must have originated in the format ABCD 123/4 - the ones created on 29/9/1939. I would suggest that e-mails containing only information on specific National Registration Areas be sent to me on familytree.henwood@btinternet.com rather than to sog-uk@rootsweb.com and that the latter is only used for general comments on the subject. David Henwood PS Let me know if anyone else is already doing this or if there is already such an index. PPS Brian, I hope you may be a contact for GENUKI which, I believe, would be the appropriate host for such an index. ----- Original Message ----- From: <chrisat53@tiscali.co.uk> To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS numbers > My card, which I also still have, shows DEBE116/3. My father was /1, my > mother > /2 but my brother, born in 1944, has an entirely different number. It > seems > when they were first issued that family received the same basic number for > the > address with each member numbered /(?). > > > > Chris Stupples > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Look at your birth cert. the entry number at the left will be 4. Your birth either was registered close to the start of a quarter or is at the start of a new register. Sent from my iPhone > On 9 Jul 2014, at 09:08, Theresa Green <t.green@britglass.co.uk> wrote: > > > > Hi - for some bizzare reason, I've always remembered my NHS number, as it was so short - all it is is: MULI 4 - I even still have the old card. This seems to be somewhat shorter than most, and not easy to decipher. > I can't work out what it means. I was born in Sheffield in 1954 (so can see what the 4 might match up to). Any suggestions please? > Thanks > Theresa > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: NHS Numbers (Dave Beakhust) > 2. Re: NHS Numbers (Malcolm Austen) > 3. Re: Dundee Howff (was SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new > query) ) (Adrian Bruce) > 4. Re: SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) (Merryl Wells) > 5. Re: NHS Numbers (Carole) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:51:01 +0100 > From: Dave Beakhust <dave@beakhust.com> > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers > To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: > <14711176e30.2733.c15f88aa9120067735b227824c49590f@beakhust.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed > > At the time you and I were born, before the coming of the NHS, we were issued with national identity numbers, that then went on to be the NHS number, as following the end of the war,everyone had one. ID cards were not scrapped till the fifties, after the NHS came in. > Yours and mine are in 2parts, letters, for the place and date of the registration district of issue, and numbers, very conveniently normally the "entry number" on the birth certificate. Check it if you did not spot this. > Mine was Brentford, 3rd quarter of 1943, entry number 365, so BAJR365. From meeting others born in the same district within a year or two, the BA part seems to be related to Brentford, the other two letters seem to change by date. > I believe that for "national security" reasons, no "decode" of these letters exists (or perhaps it does but has not been released). > I don't know whether anyone has suggested a project to compile the old idcard/NHS letters into a database, before people forget them, on the lines of cardinal points in GRO indexes. Perhaps the 1939 registration database will do this, but I would bet the published version will omit the letters and numbers. > For people already living at the time the records were set up in 1939, a different numbering scheme was used, often written as, say, 123.4, where I understand the first bit was the household,the second your place in it. Thus 4th person in household 123. > With no check digits, there is no protection against transcription error, but the new system that replaced it in the nineties has such a protection. > There is also no handy correspondence with birth certificate, but I was told that males and females could be distinguished, although this may be a myth. > > >> On 7 July 2014 10:48:29 "Merryl Wells" <merryl.wells@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, I was born 1944 and given a NHS number that reflected the year or >> date on which I was born so was easy for me to remember. However at >> some point it was changed, can't remember exactly when but after I >> left school, so don't think now it would be of any use for family research purposes. >> >> From >> Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. >> E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org >> GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. > > This company (No. 539065) is registered in England and limited by guarantee. > Registered office is at the above address. > > > > Please Note: All quoted prices exclude VAT and are valid for 30 days unless otherwise stated. All payments are due within 30 days of the date of invoice. > > This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Messages sent to and from us may be monitored. > > Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy version. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <jjgduffus@gmail.com> >> To: "sog list" <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:21 AM >> Subject: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers >> >> >>> >>> ?Dear All >>> >>> I was. Just wondering if there is a wealth of hidden info in these >>> numbers >>> that we literally carry through life. >>> >>> Is there any good guide to their decoding >>> >>> Julian Duffus >>> >>> Sog member 1978 to present >>> >>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:53:17 +0100 > From: "Malcolm Austen" <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers > To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <op.ximri3myg14ka7@oucs-hue.oucs.ox.ac.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; > delsp=yes > >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:33:09 +0100, Tony Coombe <tony_coombe@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> The simple answer is no. > > And the more complex answer is ... > >> Originally the NHS number was the war time National Registration >> Number which had numerous forms and mixtures of letters and numbers >> and occasionally forward slashes, which sometimes showed family >> relationships, and were sometimes not unique. These were replaced in >> the 1990s with a ten digit number that is supposedly unique and is now >> issued at birth registration. This includes a check digit to ensure >> validity of the whole number. There is no "hidden" information that >> can be extracted from the number itself. > > Between rhe war time allocations and 'some later time' then they do have some utility - mine is MCFO 256 which tells me my birth is registered as entry 256 in book MCFO which is allocated to margate (or Thanet, I don't recall what the district was then). > >> It is no more than a unique identifier. > > At heart, yes, but for some post-war period, knowledge of someone's NHS number gives a key into the local registrars birth registers. > > -- > Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> GENUKI trustee <genuki@weald.org.uk> Pedigree User Group <chairman@pugweb.org.uk> Oxfordshire FHS <webmaster@ofhs.org.uk> FFHS Communications Officer <communications@ffhs.org.uk> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 15:25:09 +0100 > From: "Adrian Bruce" <abruce@madasafish.com> > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Dundee Howff (was SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 > (new query) ) > To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <F1BFA90D886F41B999A96B2161F65D2F@GalaxyChill> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > <<snipped>> > My ancestor, George Watson, was buried in Howff Cemetery, Dundee in April 1847. ... > However, his burial record on Scotland's People (which shows the original record and is not a transcript) says he died in April 1848! I've asked SP if they can check this, but all they did was to look at the previous and following page, which also says 1848. > ... > Can anyone tell me what I might find if I order the "Extract" from SP please? > ... > <<snipped>> > > 1) Looking at what I presume is the photo of the correct stone (1323) on http://www.dundee-howff.info/images/stones/1323.JPG > my personal *guess* is that the most reasonable explanation is that the inscription with 1847 is not contemporary with his death but with a later one. The depth of cutting on the letters and their size *suggests* that at the very least the 1847 and 1853 lines were cut at the same time. Although the provision of a full stop at the end of the top line (1847) does suggest otherwise! > > Whether the lines were cut with the 1857 line, I don't know - gut feeling says there are slight differences in size and certainly depth, but that might be an effect of the letters being further down the stone so viewed differently. > > Fundamentally - I'm guessing but we have an anomaly, as you say, to explain. > > 2) Unless I'm very much mistaken, the SP Extract will consist of no more than the image of the line that you've already seen but done on officially embossed paper to make it a legal record. There is no more to be had, after all. > > 3) Re Carole's suggestion: "have you checked the cemetery burial registers, rather than Civil Registration??" For those unfamiliar with the workings north of the Border, in 1847/48, Civil Registration had not yet started in Scotland and burial registers are all there is. And in many, many places - not even them. > > Adrian B > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 17:15:49 +0100 > From: "Merryl Wells" <merryl.wells@ntlworld.com> > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) > To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <43A850D8169042E8B24861740B14D669@merryl1> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > Hi, I agree that to ask the Superintendent of the Cemetery if they still have original records of burials to include George Watson is a very good idea to find his year of burial. > I'm investigating a Gullick family in Mississippi and came across some dates on Find A Grave where the people were definitely Gullick but the accompanying photo of the gravestone bears the name Gullett! As it was for husband and wife perhaps it was a replacement stone but I would have thought it rather a big mistake for the stonemason to have made, or whoever instructed him. I suspect once a mistake has been made the person responsible is unlikely to have said 'never mind I'll inscribe another stone for free'. > > It is always possible that family members who know the names and dates of the people who have been buried never go back to see the gravestone. As family historians we go and visit the burial places of our ancestors or arrange for a photo to be taken if we are unable to travel. I went to visit the cemetery in Bath, Somerset where my Gullick great-grandparents plus a daughter and her husband had been buried, hoping for a gravestone, but there wasn't one so had to ask for the plots to be pointed out to me. Later I met an elderly family member and mentioned it, he looked rather embarrassed and said next time I visited there would be a gravestone as he had been charged with arranging it about thirty years earlier. So, yes, when I next visited there was a nice stone, approximately where I had been shown, but one date was incorrect according to the certificates I had been given. I didn't mention it, just said I had seen it and appreciated that it had been erected. > > From > Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. > E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org > GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Theresa Green" <t.green@britglass.co.uk> > To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 12:15 PM > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) > > >> Hi >> >> I've come across an anomaly with regard to the death of an ancestor >> and wonder if anyone might have a theory as to solving my problem please? >> >> My ancestor, George Watson, was buried in Howff Cemetery, Dundee in >> April 1847. I have a picture of his gravestone and can confirm it is >> he from several other inscriptions on the tombstone. However, his >> burial record on Scotland's People (which shows the original record >> and is not a >> transcript) says he died in April 1848! I've asked SP if they can >> check this, but all they did was to look at the previous and following >> page, which also says 1848. As far as I'm aware, we are not related >> to Lazarus (though I haven't gone that far back yet)! I'm really >> puzzled by this but can't imagine the family would not have noticed >> such an error when the headstone was put up - or equally that the >> original record is wrong - am I going mad or can anyone think of an >> explanation please? Can anyone tell me what I might find if I order >> the "Extract" from SP please? (apparently, there is a 20 day delay due >> to backlogs, but I'm not sure what it would tell me). >> >> Much obliged fellow hunters. >> Thank you >> Theresa > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 07:54:02 +0100 > From: Carole <carole.eales@talktalk.net> > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers > To: "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> > Message-ID: <CFCAE9CB-FAFD-4F33-A903-4C74B279AFEA@talktalk.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi > > I always suspected my number, RLDL500, was more than just a co-incidence...my birth certificate, which was issued in Northampton at the beginning of 1945, was no. 500 ....thanks for confirmation ! > > Carole > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 7 Jul 2014, at 14:51, Dave Beakhust <dave@beakhust.com> wrote: >> >> At the time you and I were born, before the coming of the NHS, we were >> issued with national identity numbers, that then went on to be the NHS >> number, as following the end of the war,everyone had one. ID cards >> were not scrapped till the fifties, after the NHS came in. >> Yours and mine are in 2parts, letters, for the place and date of the >> registration district of issue, and numbers, very conveniently >> normally the "entry number" on the birth certificate. Check it if you did not spot this. >> Mine was Brentford, 3rd quarter of 1943, entry number 365, so BAJR365. >> From meeting others born in the same district within a year or two, >> the BA part seems to be related to Brentford, the other two letters seem to change by date. >> I believe that for "national security" reasons, no "decode" of these >> letters exists (or perhaps it does but has not been released). >> I don't know whether anyone has suggested a project to compile the old >> idcard/NHS letters into a database, before people forget them, on the >> lines of cardinal points in GRO indexes. Perhaps the 1939 registration >> database will do this, but I would bet the published version will omit >> the letters and numbers. >> For people already living at the time the records were set up in 1939, >> a different numbering scheme was used, often written as, say, 123.4, >> where I understand the first bit was the household,the second your >> place in it. Thus 4th person in household 123. >> With no check digits, there is no protection against transcription >> error, but the new system that replaced it in the nineties has such a protection. >> There is also no handy correspondence with birth certificate, but I >> was told that males and females could be distinguished, although this >> may be a myth. >> >> >>> On 7 July 2014 10:48:29 "Merryl Wells" <merryl.wells@ntlworld.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, I was born 1944 and given a NHS number that reflected the year >>> or date on which I was born so was easy for me to remember. However >>> at some point it was changed, can't remember exactly when but after I >>> left school, so don't think now it would be of any use for family research purposes. >>> >>> From >>> Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. >>> E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org >>> GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: <jjgduffus@gmail.com> >>> To: "sog list" <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> >>> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:21 AM >>> Subject: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers >>> >>> >>>> >>>> ?Dear All >>>> >>>> I was. Just wondering if there is a wealth of hidden info in these >>>> numbers that we literally carry through life. >>>> >>>> Is there any good guide to their decoding >>>> >>>> Julian Duffus >>>> >>>> Sog member 1978 to present >>>> >>>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>>> SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the SOG-UK list administrator, send an email to SOG-UK-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the SOG-UK mailing list, send an email to SOG-UK@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. > > > End of SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 90 > ************************************* > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:11:50 +0100 > From: "Malcolm Austen" <ma10@weald.org.uk> > Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers > To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <op.ximplojh5nvyky@oucs-hue.oucs.ox.ac.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; > delsp=yes > >> On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:33:09 +0100, Tony Coombe <tony_coombe@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >> The simple answer is no. > > And the more complex answer is ... > >> Originally the NHS number was the war time National Registration >> Number which had numerous forms and mixtures of letters and numbers >> and occasionally forward slashes, which sometimes showed family >> relationships, and were sometimes not unique. These were replaced in >> the 1990s with a ten digit number that is supposedly unique and is now >> issued at birth registration. This includes a check digit to ensure >> validity of the whole number. There is no "hidden" information that >> can be extracted from the number itself. > > Between rhe war time allocations and 'some later time' then they do have some utility - mine is MCFO 256 which tells me my birth is registered as entry 256 in book MCFO which is allocated to margate (or Thanet, I don't recall what the district was then). > >> It is no more than a unique identifier. > > At heart, yes, but for some post-war period, knowledge of someone's NHS number gives a key into the local registrars birth registers. > > -- > Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> GENUKI trustee <genuki@weald.org.uk> Pedigree User Group <chairman@pugweb.org.uk> Oxfordshire FHS <webmaster@ofhs.org.uk> FFHS Communications Officer <communications@ffhs.org.uk> > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the SOG-UK list administrator, send an email to SOG-UK-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the SOG-UK mailing list, send an email to SOG-UK@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. > > > End of SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 91 > ************************************* > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Have a look at your original birth certificate... you might find that it is no 4 in the first column... that is the number in the register Carole -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Theresa Green Sent: 09 July 2014 09:08 To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Subject: [SOG-UK] NHS numbers Hi - for some bizzare reason, I've always remembered my NHS number, as it was so short - all it is is: MULI 4 - I even still have the old card. This seems to be somewhat shorter than most, and not easy to decipher. I can't work out what it means. I was born in Sheffield in 1954 (so can see what the 4 might match up to). Any suggestions please? Thanks Theresa Today's Topics: 1. Re: NHS Numbers (Dave Beakhust) 2. Re: NHS Numbers (Malcolm Austen) 3. Re: Dundee Howff (was SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) ) (Adrian Bruce) 4. Re: SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) (Merryl Wells) 5. Re: NHS Numbers (Carole) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:51:01 +0100 From: Dave Beakhust <dave@beakhust.com> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <14711176e30.2733.c15f88aa9120067735b227824c49590f@beakhust.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed At the time you and I were born, before the coming of the NHS, we were issued with national identity numbers, that then went on to be the NHS number, as following the end of the war,everyone had one. ID cards were not scrapped till the fifties, after the NHS came in. Yours and mine are in 2parts, letters, for the place and date of the registration district of issue, and numbers, very conveniently normally the "entry number" on the birth certificate. Check it if you did not spot this. Mine was Brentford, 3rd quarter of 1943, entry number 365, so BAJR365. From meeting others born in the same district within a year or two, the BA part seems to be related to Brentford, the other two letters seem to change by date. I believe that for "national security" reasons, no "decode" of these letters exists (or perhaps it does but has not been released). I don't know whether anyone has suggested a project to compile the old idcard/NHS letters into a database, before people forget them, on the lines of cardinal points in GRO indexes. Perhaps the 1939 registration database will do this, but I would bet the published version will omit the letters and numbers. For people already living at the time the records were set up in 1939, a different numbering scheme was used, often written as, say, 123.4, where I understand the first bit was the household,the second your place in it. Thus 4th person in household 123. With no check digits, there is no protection against transcription error, but the new system that replaced it in the nineties has such a protection. There is also no handy correspondence with birth certificate, but I was told that males and females could be distinguished, although this may be a myth. On 7 July 2014 10:48:29 "Merryl Wells" <merryl.wells@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Hi, I was born 1944 and given a NHS number that reflected the year or > date on which I was born so was easy for me to remember. However at > some point it was changed, can't remember exactly when but after I > left school, so don't think now it would be of any use for family research purposes. > > From > Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. > E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org > GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. > This company (No. 539065) is registered in England and limited by guarantee. Registered office is at the above address. Please Note: All quoted prices exclude VAT and are valid for 30 days unless otherwise stated. All payments are due within 30 days of the date of invoice. This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Messages sent to and from us may be monitored. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy version. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. ----- Original Message ----- > From: <jjgduffus@gmail.com> > To: "sog list" <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:21 AM > Subject: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers > > > > > > ?Dear All > > > > I was. Just wondering if there is a wealth of hidden info in these > > numbers > > that we literally carry through life. > > > > Is there any good guide to their decoding > > > > Julian Duffus > > > > Sog member 1978 to present > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:53:17 +0100 From: "Malcolm Austen" <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <op.ximri3myg14ka7@oucs-hue.oucs.ox.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:33:09 +0100, Tony Coombe <tony_coombe@btinternet.com> wrote: > The simple answer is no. And the more complex answer is ... > Originally the NHS number was the war time National Registration > Number which had numerous forms and mixtures of letters and numbers > and occasionally forward slashes, which sometimes showed family > relationships, and were sometimes not unique. These were replaced in > the 1990s with a ten digit number that is supposedly unique and is now > issued at birth registration. This includes a check digit to ensure > validity of the whole number. There is no "hidden" information that > can be extracted from the number itself. Between rhe war time allocations and 'some later time' then they do have some utility - mine is MCFO 256 which tells me my birth is registered as entry 256 in book MCFO which is allocated to margate (or Thanet, I don't recall what the district was then). > It is no more than a unique identifier. At heart, yes, but for some post-war period, knowledge of someone's NHS number gives a key into the local registrars birth registers. -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> GENUKI trustee <genuki@weald.org.uk> Pedigree User Group <chairman@pugweb.org.uk> Oxfordshire FHS <webmaster@ofhs.org.uk> FFHS Communications Officer <communications@ffhs.org.uk> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 15:25:09 +0100 From: "Adrian Bruce" <abruce@madasafish.com> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Dundee Howff (was SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) ) To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <F1BFA90D886F41B999A96B2161F65D2F@GalaxyChill> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" <<snipped>> My ancestor, George Watson, was buried in Howff Cemetery, Dundee in April 1847. ... However, his burial record on Scotland's People (which shows the original record and is not a transcript) says he died in April 1848! I've asked SP if they can check this, but all they did was to look at the previous and following page, which also says 1848. ... Can anyone tell me what I might find if I order the "Extract" from SP please? ... <<snipped>> 1) Looking at what I presume is the photo of the correct stone (1323) on http://www.dundee-howff.info/images/stones/1323.JPG my personal *guess* is that the most reasonable explanation is that the inscription with 1847 is not contemporary with his death but with a later one. The depth of cutting on the letters and their size *suggests* that at the very least the 1847 and 1853 lines were cut at the same time. Although the provision of a full stop at the end of the top line (1847) does suggest otherwise! Whether the lines were cut with the 1857 line, I don't know - gut feeling says there are slight differences in size and certainly depth, but that might be an effect of the letters being further down the stone so viewed differently. Fundamentally - I'm guessing but we have an anomaly, as you say, to explain. 2) Unless I'm very much mistaken, the SP Extract will consist of no more than the image of the line that you've already seen but done on officially embossed paper to make it a legal record. There is no more to be had, after all. 3) Re Carole's suggestion: "have you checked the cemetery burial registers, rather than Civil Registration??" For those unfamiliar with the workings north of the Border, in 1847/48, Civil Registration had not yet started in Scotland and burial registers are all there is. And in many, many places - not even them. Adrian B ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 17:15:49 +0100 From: "Merryl Wells" <merryl.wells@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <43A850D8169042E8B24861740B14D669@merryl1> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hi, I agree that to ask the Superintendent of the Cemetery if they still have original records of burials to include George Watson is a very good idea to find his year of burial. I'm investigating a Gullick family in Mississippi and came across some dates on Find A Grave where the people were definitely Gullick but the accompanying photo of the gravestone bears the name Gullett! As it was for husband and wife perhaps it was a replacement stone but I would have thought it rather a big mistake for the stonemason to have made, or whoever instructed him. I suspect once a mistake has been made the person responsible is unlikely to have said 'never mind I'll inscribe another stone for free'. It is always possible that family members who know the names and dates of the people who have been buried never go back to see the gravestone. As family historians we go and visit the burial places of our ancestors or arrange for a photo to be taken if we are unable to travel. I went to visit the cemetery in Bath, Somerset where my Gullick great-grandparents plus a daughter and her husband had been buried, hoping for a gravestone, but there wasn't one so had to ask for the plots to be pointed out to me. Later I met an elderly family member and mentioned it, he looked rather embarrassed and said next time I visited there would be a gravestone as he had been charged with arranging it about thirty years earlier. So, yes, when I next visited there was a nice stone, approximately where I had been shown, but one date was incorrect according to the certificates I had been given. I didn't mention it, just said I had seen it and appreciated that it had been erected. From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Theresa Green" <t.green@britglass.co.uk> To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) > Hi > > I've come across an anomaly with regard to the death of an ancestor > and wonder if anyone might have a theory as to solving my problem please? > > My ancestor, George Watson, was buried in Howff Cemetery, Dundee in > April 1847. I have a picture of his gravestone and can confirm it is > he from several other inscriptions on the tombstone. However, his > burial record on Scotland's People (which shows the original record > and is not a > transcript) says he died in April 1848! I've asked SP if they can > check this, but all they did was to look at the previous and following > page, which also says 1848. As far as I'm aware, we are not related > to Lazarus (though I haven't gone that far back yet)! I'm really > puzzled by this but can't imagine the family would not have noticed > such an error when the headstone was put up - or equally that the > original record is wrong - am I going mad or can anyone think of an > explanation please? Can anyone tell me what I might find if I order > the "Extract" from SP please? (apparently, there is a 20 day delay due > to backlogs, but I'm not sure what it would tell me). > > Much obliged fellow hunters. > Thank you > Theresa ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 07:54:02 +0100 From: Carole <carole.eales@talktalk.net> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers To: "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <CFCAE9CB-FAFD-4F33-A903-4C74B279AFEA@talktalk.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi I always suspected my number, RLDL500, was more than just a co-incidence...my birth certificate, which was issued in Northampton at the beginning of 1945, was no. 500 ....thanks for confirmation ! Carole Sent from my iPad > On 7 Jul 2014, at 14:51, Dave Beakhust <dave@beakhust.com> wrote: > > At the time you and I were born, before the coming of the NHS, we were > issued with national identity numbers, that then went on to be the NHS > number, as following the end of the war,everyone had one. ID cards > were not scrapped till the fifties, after the NHS came in. > Yours and mine are in 2parts, letters, for the place and date of the > registration district of issue, and numbers, very conveniently > normally the "entry number" on the birth certificate. Check it if you did not spot this. > Mine was Brentford, 3rd quarter of 1943, entry number 365, so BAJR365. > From meeting others born in the same district within a year or two, > the BA part seems to be related to Brentford, the other two letters seem to change by date. > I believe that for "national security" reasons, no "decode" of these > letters exists (or perhaps it does but has not been released). > I don't know whether anyone has suggested a project to compile the old > idcard/NHS letters into a database, before people forget them, on the > lines of cardinal points in GRO indexes. Perhaps the 1939 registration > database will do this, but I would bet the published version will omit > the letters and numbers. > For people already living at the time the records were set up in 1939, > a different numbering scheme was used, often written as, say, 123.4, > where I understand the first bit was the household,the second your > place in it. Thus 4th person in household 123. > With no check digits, there is no protection against transcription > error, but the new system that replaced it in the nineties has such a protection. > There is also no handy correspondence with birth certificate, but I > was told that males and females could be distinguished, although this > may be a myth. > > >> On 7 July 2014 10:48:29 "Merryl Wells" <merryl.wells@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, I was born 1944 and given a NHS number that reflected the year >> or date on which I was born so was easy for me to remember. However >> at some point it was changed, can't remember exactly when but after I >> left school, so don't think now it would be of any use for family research purposes. >> >> From >> Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. >> E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org >> GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <jjgduffus@gmail.com> >> To: "sog list" <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:21 AM >> Subject: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers >> >> >>> >>> ?Dear All >>> >>> I was. Just wondering if there is a wealth of hidden info in these >>> numbers that we literally carry through life. >>> >>> Is there any good guide to their decoding >>> >>> Julian Duffus >>> >>> Sog member 1978 to present >>> >>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ To contact the SOG-UK list administrator, send an email to SOG-UK-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the SOG-UK mailing list, send an email to SOG-UK@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 90 ************************************* ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:11:50 +0100 From: "Malcolm Austen" <ma10@weald.org.uk> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <op.ximplojh5nvyky@oucs-hue.oucs.ox.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:33:09 +0100, Tony Coombe <tony_coombe@btinternet.com> wrote: > The simple answer is no. And the more complex answer is ... > Originally the NHS number was the war time National Registration > Number which had numerous forms and mixtures of letters and numbers > and occasionally forward slashes, which sometimes showed family > relationships, and were sometimes not unique. These were replaced in > the 1990s with a ten digit number that is supposedly unique and is now > issued at birth registration. This includes a check digit to ensure > validity of the whole number. There is no "hidden" information that > can be extracted from the number itself. Between rhe war time allocations and 'some later time' then they do have some utility - mine is MCFO 256 which tells me my birth is registered as entry 256 in book MCFO which is allocated to margate (or Thanet, I don't recall what the district was then). > It is no more than a unique identifier. At heart, yes, but for some post-war period, knowledge of someone's NHS number gives a key into the local registrars birth registers. -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> GENUKI trustee <genuki@weald.org.uk> Pedigree User Group <chairman@pugweb.org.uk> Oxfordshire FHS <webmaster@ofhs.org.uk> FFHS Communications Officer <communications@ffhs.org.uk> ------------------------------ To contact the SOG-UK list administrator, send an email to SOG-UK-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the SOG-UK mailing list, send an email to SOG-UK@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 91 ************************************* ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

My card, which I also still have, shows DEBE116/3. My father was /1, my mother /2 but my brother, born in 1944, has an entirely different number. It seems when they were first issued that family received the same basic number for the address with each member numbered /(?). Chris Stupples

Hi - for some bizzare reason, I've always remembered my NHS number, as it was so short - all it is is: MULI 4 - I even still have the old card. This seems to be somewhat shorter than most, and not easy to decipher. I can't work out what it means. I was born in Sheffield in 1954 (so can see what the 4 might match up to). Any suggestions please? Thanks Theresa Today's Topics: 1. Re: NHS Numbers (Dave Beakhust) 2. Re: NHS Numbers (Malcolm Austen) 3. Re: Dundee Howff (was SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) ) (Adrian Bruce) 4. Re: SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) (Merryl Wells) 5. Re: NHS Numbers (Carole) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:51:01 +0100 From: Dave Beakhust <dave@beakhust.com> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <14711176e30.2733.c15f88aa9120067735b227824c49590f@beakhust.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed At the time you and I were born, before the coming of the NHS, we were issued with national identity numbers, that then went on to be the NHS number, as following the end of the war,everyone had one. ID cards were not scrapped till the fifties, after the NHS came in. Yours and mine are in 2parts, letters, for the place and date of the registration district of issue, and numbers, very conveniently normally the "entry number" on the birth certificate. Check it if you did not spot this. Mine was Brentford, 3rd quarter of 1943, entry number 365, so BAJR365. From meeting others born in the same district within a year or two, the BA part seems to be related to Brentford, the other two letters seem to change by date. I believe that for "national security" reasons, no "decode" of these letters exists (or perhaps it does but has not been released). I don't know whether anyone has suggested a project to compile the old idcard/NHS letters into a database, before people forget them, on the lines of cardinal points in GRO indexes. Perhaps the 1939 registration database will do this, but I would bet the published version will omit the letters and numbers. For people already living at the time the records were set up in 1939, a different numbering scheme was used, often written as, say, 123.4, where I understand the first bit was the household,the second your place in it. Thus 4th person in household 123. With no check digits, there is no protection against transcription error, but the new system that replaced it in the nineties has such a protection. There is also no handy correspondence with birth certificate, but I was told that males and females could be distinguished, although this may be a myth. On 7 July 2014 10:48:29 "Merryl Wells" <merryl.wells@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Hi, I was born 1944 and given a NHS number that reflected the year or > date on which I was born so was easy for me to remember. However at > some point it was changed, can't remember exactly when but after I > left school, so don't think now it would be of any use for family research purposes. > > From > Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. > E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org > GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. > This company (No. 539065) is registered in England and limited by guarantee. Registered office is at the above address. Please Note: All quoted prices exclude VAT and are valid for 30 days unless otherwise stated. All payments are due within 30 days of the date of invoice. This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Messages sent to and from us may be monitored. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy version. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. ----- Original Message ----- > From: <jjgduffus@gmail.com> > To: "sog list" <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:21 AM > Subject: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers > > > > > > ?Dear All > > > > I was. Just wondering if there is a wealth of hidden info in these > > numbers > > that we literally carry through life. > > > > Is there any good guide to their decoding > > > > Julian Duffus > > > > Sog member 1978 to present > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:53:17 +0100 From: "Malcolm Austen" <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <op.ximri3myg14ka7@oucs-hue.oucs.ox.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:33:09 +0100, Tony Coombe <tony_coombe@btinternet.com> wrote: > The simple answer is no. And the more complex answer is ... > Originally the NHS number was the war time National Registration > Number which had numerous forms and mixtures of letters and numbers > and occasionally forward slashes, which sometimes showed family > relationships, and were sometimes not unique. These were replaced in > the 1990s with a ten digit number that is supposedly unique and is now > issued at birth registration. This includes a check digit to ensure > validity of the whole number. There is no "hidden" information that > can be extracted from the number itself. Between rhe war time allocations and 'some later time' then they do have some utility - mine is MCFO 256 which tells me my birth is registered as entry 256 in book MCFO which is allocated to margate (or Thanet, I don't recall what the district was then). > It is no more than a unique identifier. At heart, yes, but for some post-war period, knowledge of someone's NHS number gives a key into the local registrars birth registers. -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> GENUKI trustee <genuki@weald.org.uk> Pedigree User Group <chairman@pugweb.org.uk> Oxfordshire FHS <webmaster@ofhs.org.uk> FFHS Communications Officer <communications@ffhs.org.uk> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 15:25:09 +0100 From: "Adrian Bruce" <abruce@madasafish.com> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Dundee Howff (was SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) ) To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <F1BFA90D886F41B999A96B2161F65D2F@GalaxyChill> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" <<snipped>> My ancestor, George Watson, was buried in Howff Cemetery, Dundee in April 1847. ... However, his burial record on Scotland's People (which shows the original record and is not a transcript) says he died in April 1848! I've asked SP if they can check this, but all they did was to look at the previous and following page, which also says 1848. ... Can anyone tell me what I might find if I order the "Extract" from SP please? ... <<snipped>> 1) Looking at what I presume is the photo of the correct stone (1323) on http://www.dundee-howff.info/images/stones/1323.JPG my personal *guess* is that the most reasonable explanation is that the inscription with 1847 is not contemporary with his death but with a later one. The depth of cutting on the letters and their size *suggests* that at the very least the 1847 and 1853 lines were cut at the same time. Although the provision of a full stop at the end of the top line (1847) does suggest otherwise! Whether the lines were cut with the 1857 line, I don't know - gut feeling says there are slight differences in size and certainly depth, but that might be an effect of the letters being further down the stone so viewed differently. Fundamentally - I'm guessing but we have an anomaly, as you say, to explain. 2) Unless I'm very much mistaken, the SP Extract will consist of no more than the image of the line that you've already seen but done on officially embossed paper to make it a legal record. There is no more to be had, after all. 3) Re Carole's suggestion: "have you checked the cemetery burial registers, rather than Civil Registration??" For those unfamiliar with the workings north of the Border, in 1847/48, Civil Registration had not yet started in Scotland and burial registers are all there is. And in many, many places - not even them. Adrian B ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 17:15:49 +0100 From: "Merryl Wells" <merryl.wells@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <43A850D8169042E8B24861740B14D669@merryl1> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hi, I agree that to ask the Superintendent of the Cemetery if they still have original records of burials to include George Watson is a very good idea to find his year of burial. I'm investigating a Gullick family in Mississippi and came across some dates on Find A Grave where the people were definitely Gullick but the accompanying photo of the gravestone bears the name Gullett! As it was for husband and wife perhaps it was a replacement stone but I would have thought it rather a big mistake for the stonemason to have made, or whoever instructed him. I suspect once a mistake has been made the person responsible is unlikely to have said 'never mind I'll inscribe another stone for free'. It is always possible that family members who know the names and dates of the people who have been buried never go back to see the gravestone. As family historians we go and visit the burial places of our ancestors or arrange for a photo to be taken if we are unable to travel. I went to visit the cemetery in Bath, Somerset where my Gullick great-grandparents plus a daughter and her husband had been buried, hoping for a gravestone, but there wasn't one so had to ask for the plots to be pointed out to me. Later I met an elderly family member and mentioned it, he looked rather embarrassed and said next time I visited there would be a gravestone as he had been charged with arranging it about thirty years earlier. So, yes, when I next visited there was a nice stone, approximately where I had been shown, but one date was incorrect according to the certificates I had been given. I didn't mention it, just said I had seen it and appreciated that it had been erected. From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Theresa Green" <t.green@britglass.co.uk> To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) > Hi > > I've come across an anomaly with regard to the death of an ancestor > and wonder if anyone might have a theory as to solving my problem please? > > My ancestor, George Watson, was buried in Howff Cemetery, Dundee in > April 1847. I have a picture of his gravestone and can confirm it is > he from several other inscriptions on the tombstone. However, his > burial record on Scotland's People (which shows the original record > and is not a > transcript) says he died in April 1848! I've asked SP if they can > check this, but all they did was to look at the previous and following > page, which also says 1848. As far as I'm aware, we are not related > to Lazarus (though I haven't gone that far back yet)! I'm really > puzzled by this but can't imagine the family would not have noticed > such an error when the headstone was put up - or equally that the > original record is wrong - am I going mad or can anyone think of an > explanation please? Can anyone tell me what I might find if I order > the "Extract" from SP please? (apparently, there is a 20 day delay due > to backlogs, but I'm not sure what it would tell me). > > Much obliged fellow hunters. > Thank you > Theresa ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 07:54:02 +0100 From: Carole <carole.eales@talktalk.net> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers To: "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <CFCAE9CB-FAFD-4F33-A903-4C74B279AFEA@talktalk.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi I always suspected my number, RLDL500, was more than just a co-incidence...my birth certificate, which was issued in Northampton at the beginning of 1945, was no. 500 ....thanks for confirmation ! Carole Sent from my iPad > On 7 Jul 2014, at 14:51, Dave Beakhust <dave@beakhust.com> wrote: > > At the time you and I were born, before the coming of the NHS, we were > issued with national identity numbers, that then went on to be the NHS > number, as following the end of the war,everyone had one. ID cards > were not scrapped till the fifties, after the NHS came in. > Yours and mine are in 2parts, letters, for the place and date of the > registration district of issue, and numbers, very conveniently > normally the "entry number" on the birth certificate. Check it if you did not spot this. > Mine was Brentford, 3rd quarter of 1943, entry number 365, so BAJR365. > From meeting others born in the same district within a year or two, > the BA part seems to be related to Brentford, the other two letters seem to change by date. > I believe that for "national security" reasons, no "decode" of these > letters exists (or perhaps it does but has not been released). > I don't know whether anyone has suggested a project to compile the old > idcard/NHS letters into a database, before people forget them, on the > lines of cardinal points in GRO indexes. Perhaps the 1939 registration > database will do this, but I would bet the published version will omit > the letters and numbers. > For people already living at the time the records were set up in 1939, > a different numbering scheme was used, often written as, say, 123.4, > where I understand the first bit was the household,the second your > place in it. Thus 4th person in household 123. > With no check digits, there is no protection against transcription > error, but the new system that replaced it in the nineties has such a protection. > There is also no handy correspondence with birth certificate, but I > was told that males and females could be distinguished, although this > may be a myth. > > >> On 7 July 2014 10:48:29 "Merryl Wells" <merryl.wells@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, I was born 1944 and given a NHS number that reflected the year >> or date on which I was born so was easy for me to remember. However >> at some point it was changed, can't remember exactly when but after I >> left school, so don't think now it would be of any use for family research purposes. >> >> From >> Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. >> E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org >> GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <jjgduffus@gmail.com> >> To: "sog list" <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:21 AM >> Subject: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers >> >> >>> >>> ?Dear All >>> >>> I was. Just wondering if there is a wealth of hidden info in these >>> numbers that we literally carry through life. >>> >>> Is there any good guide to their decoding >>> >>> Julian Duffus >>> >>> Sog member 1978 to present >>> >>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ To contact the SOG-UK list administrator, send an email to SOG-UK-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the SOG-UK mailing list, send an email to SOG-UK@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 90 ************************************* ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:11:50 +0100 From: "Malcolm Austen" <ma10@weald.org.uk> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <op.ximplojh5nvyky@oucs-hue.oucs.ox.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:33:09 +0100, Tony Coombe <tony_coombe@btinternet.com> wrote: > The simple answer is no. And the more complex answer is ... > Originally the NHS number was the war time National Registration > Number which had numerous forms and mixtures of letters and numbers > and occasionally forward slashes, which sometimes showed family > relationships, and were sometimes not unique. These were replaced in > the 1990s with a ten digit number that is supposedly unique and is now > issued at birth registration. This includes a check digit to ensure > validity of the whole number. There is no "hidden" information that > can be extracted from the number itself. Between rhe war time allocations and 'some later time' then they do have some utility - mine is MCFO 256 which tells me my birth is registered as entry 256 in book MCFO which is allocated to margate (or Thanet, I don't recall what the district was then). > It is no more than a unique identifier. At heart, yes, but for some post-war period, knowledge of someone's NHS number gives a key into the local registrars birth registers. -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> GENUKI trustee <genuki@weald.org.uk> Pedigree User Group <chairman@pugweb.org.uk> Oxfordshire FHS <webmaster@ofhs.org.uk> FFHS Communications Officer <communications@ffhs.org.uk> ------------------------------ To contact the SOG-UK list administrator, send an email to SOG-UK-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the SOG-UK mailing list, send an email to SOG-UK@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 91 *************************************

A big thank you to all who replied - you are all extremely knowledgeable! THANKS Theresa This company (No. 539065) is registered in England and limited by guarantee. Registered office is at the above address. Please Note: All quoted prices exclude VAT and are valid for 30 days unless otherwise stated. All payments are due within 30 days of the date of invoice. This message (and any associated files) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential, subject to copyright or constitutes a trade secret. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, copying or distribution of this message, or files associated with this message, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Messages sent to and from us may be monitored. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy version. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. -----Original Message----- From: sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sog-uk-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of sog-uk-request@rootsweb.com Sent: 08 July 2014 08:01 To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Subject: SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 90 Today's Topics: 1. Re: NHS Numbers (Dave Beakhust) 2. Re: NHS Numbers (Malcolm Austen) 3. Re: Dundee Howff (was SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) ) (Adrian Bruce) 4. Re: SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) (Merryl Wells) 5. Re: NHS Numbers (Carole) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:51:01 +0100 From: Dave Beakhust <dave@beakhust.com> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <14711176e30.2733.c15f88aa9120067735b227824c49590f@beakhust.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed At the time you and I were born, before the coming of the NHS, we were issued with national identity numbers, that then went on to be the NHS number, as following the end of the war,everyone had one. ID cards were not scrapped till the fifties, after the NHS came in. Yours and mine are in 2parts, letters, for the place and date of the registration district of issue, and numbers, very conveniently normally the "entry number" on the birth certificate. Check it if you did not spot this. Mine was Brentford, 3rd quarter of 1943, entry number 365, so BAJR365. From meeting others born in the same district within a year or two, the BA part seems to be related to Brentford, the other two letters seem to change by date. I believe that for "national security" reasons, no "decode" of these letters exists (or perhaps it does but has not been released). I don't know whether anyone has suggested a project to compile the old idcard/NHS letters into a database, before people forget them, on the lines of cardinal points in GRO indexes. Perhaps the 1939 registration database will do this, but I would bet the published version will omit the letters and numbers. For people already living at the time the records were set up in 1939, a different numbering scheme was used, often written as, say, 123.4, where I understand the first bit was the household,the second your place in it. Thus 4th person in household 123. With no check digits, there is no protection against transcription error, but the new system that replaced it in the nineties has such a protection. There is also no handy correspondence with birth certificate, but I was told that males and females could be distinguished, although this may be a myth. On 7 July 2014 10:48:29 "Merryl Wells" <merryl.wells@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Hi, I was born 1944 and given a NHS number that reflected the year or > date on which I was born so was easy for me to remember. However at > some point it was changed, can't remember exactly when but after I > left school, so don't think now it would be of any use for family research purposes. > > From > Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. > E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org > GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <jjgduffus@gmail.com> > To: "sog list" <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:21 AM > Subject: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers > > > > > > ?Dear All > > > > I was. Just wondering if there is a wealth of hidden info in these > > numbers > > that we literally carry through life. > > > > Is there any good guide to their decoding > > > > Julian Duffus > > > > Sog member 1978 to present > > > > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. > > > > ------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 14:53:17 +0100 From: "Malcolm Austen" <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com Message-ID: <op.ximri3myg14ka7@oucs-hue.oucs.ox.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:33:09 +0100, Tony Coombe <tony_coombe@btinternet.com> wrote: > The simple answer is no. And the more complex answer is ... > Originally the NHS number was the war time National Registration > Number which had numerous forms and mixtures of letters and numbers > and occasionally forward slashes, which sometimes showed family > relationships, and were sometimes not unique. These were replaced in > the 1990s with a ten digit number that is supposedly unique and is now > issued at birth registration. This includes a check digit to ensure > validity of the whole number. There is no "hidden" information that > can be extracted from the number itself. Between rhe war time allocations and 'some later time' then they do have some utility - mine is MCFO 256 which tells me my birth is registered as entry 256 in book MCFO which is allocated to margate (or Thanet, I don't recall what the district was then). > It is no more than a unique identifier. At heart, yes, but for some post-war period, knowledge of someone's NHS number gives a key into the local registrars birth registers. -- Malcolm Austen <malcolm.austen@weald.org.uk> GENUKI trustee <genuki@weald.org.uk> Pedigree User Group <chairman@pugweb.org.uk> Oxfordshire FHS <webmaster@ofhs.org.uk> FFHS Communications Officer <communications@ffhs.org.uk> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 15:25:09 +0100 From: "Adrian Bruce" <abruce@madasafish.com> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] Dundee Howff (was SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) ) To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <F1BFA90D886F41B999A96B2161F65D2F@GalaxyChill> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" <<snipped>> My ancestor, George Watson, was buried in Howff Cemetery, Dundee in April 1847. ... However, his burial record on Scotland's People (which shows the original record and is not a transcript) says he died in April 1848! I've asked SP if they can check this, but all they did was to look at the previous and following page, which also says 1848. ... Can anyone tell me what I might find if I order the "Extract" from SP please? ... <<snipped>> 1) Looking at what I presume is the photo of the correct stone (1323) on http://www.dundee-howff.info/images/stones/1323.JPG my personal *guess* is that the most reasonable explanation is that the inscription with 1847 is not contemporary with his death but with a later one. The depth of cutting on the letters and their size *suggests* that at the very least the 1847 and 1853 lines were cut at the same time. Although the provision of a full stop at the end of the top line (1847) does suggest otherwise! Whether the lines were cut with the 1857 line, I don't know - gut feeling says there are slight differences in size and certainly depth, but that might be an effect of the letters being further down the stone so viewed differently. Fundamentally - I'm guessing but we have an anomaly, as you say, to explain. 2) Unless I'm very much mistaken, the SP Extract will consist of no more than the image of the line that you've already seen but done on officially embossed paper to make it a legal record. There is no more to be had, after all. 3) Re Carole's suggestion: "have you checked the cemetery burial registers, rather than Civil Registration??" For those unfamiliar with the workings north of the Border, in 1847/48, Civil Registration had not yet started in Scotland and burial registers are all there is. And in many, many places - not even them. Adrian B ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 17:15:49 +0100 From: "Merryl Wells" <merryl.wells@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <43A850D8169042E8B24861740B14D669@merryl1> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Hi, I agree that to ask the Superintendent of the Cemetery if they still have original records of burials to include George Watson is a very good idea to find his year of burial. I'm investigating a Gullick family in Mississippi and came across some dates on Find A Grave where the people were definitely Gullick but the accompanying photo of the gravestone bears the name Gullett! As it was for husband and wife perhaps it was a replacement stone but I would have thought it rather a big mistake for the stonemason to have made, or whoever instructed him. I suspect once a mistake has been made the person responsible is unlikely to have said 'never mind I'll inscribe another stone for free'. It is always possible that family members who know the names and dates of the people who have been buried never go back to see the gravestone. As family historians we go and visit the burial places of our ancestors or arrange for a photo to be taken if we are unable to travel. I went to visit the cemetery in Bath, Somerset where my Gullick great-grandparents plus a daughter and her husband had been buried, hoping for a gravestone, but there wasn't one so had to ask for the plots to be pointed out to me. Later I met an elderly family member and mentioned it, he looked rather embarrassed and said next time I visited there would be a gravestone as he had been charged with arranging it about thirty years earlier. So, yes, when I next visited there was a nice stone, approximately where I had been shown, but one date was incorrect according to the certificates I had been given. I didn't mention it, just said I had seen it and appreciated that it had been erected. From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Theresa Green" <t.green@britglass.co.uk> To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) > Hi > > I've come across an anomaly with regard to the death of an ancestor and > wonder if anyone might have a theory as to solving my problem please? > > My ancestor, George Watson, was buried in Howff Cemetery, Dundee in April > 1847. I have a picture of his gravestone and can confirm it is he from > several other inscriptions on the tombstone. However, his burial record > on Scotland's People (which shows the original record and is not a > transcript) says he died in April 1848! I've asked SP if they can check > this, but all they did was to look at the previous and following page, > which also says 1848. As far as I'm aware, we are not related to Lazarus > (though I haven't gone that far back yet)! I'm really puzzled by this but > can't imagine the family would not have noticed such an error when the > headstone was put up - or equally that the original record is wrong - am I > going mad or can anyone think of an explanation please? Can anyone tell > me what I might find if I order the "Extract" from SP please? (apparently, > there is a 20 day delay due to backlogs, but I'm not sure what it would > tell me). > > Much obliged fellow hunters. > Thank you > Theresa ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 07:54:02 +0100 From: Carole <carole.eales@talktalk.net> Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers To: "sog-uk@rootsweb.com" <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <CFCAE9CB-FAFD-4F33-A903-4C74B279AFEA@talktalk.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi I always suspected my number, RLDL500, was more than just a co-incidence...my birth certificate, which was issued in Northampton at the beginning of 1945, was no. 500 ....thanks for confirmation ! Carole Sent from my iPad > On 7 Jul 2014, at 14:51, Dave Beakhust <dave@beakhust.com> wrote: > > At the time you and I were born, before the coming of the NHS, we were > issued with national identity numbers, that then went on to be the NHS > number, as following the end of the war,everyone had one. ID cards were not > scrapped till the fifties, after the NHS came in. > Yours and mine are in 2parts, letters, for the place and date of the > registration district of issue, and numbers, very conveniently normally the > "entry number" on the birth certificate. Check it if you did not spot this. > Mine was Brentford, 3rd quarter of 1943, entry number 365, so BAJR365. From > meeting others born in the same district within a year or two, the BA part > seems to be related to Brentford, the other two letters seem to change by date. > I believe that for "national security" reasons, no "decode" of these > letters exists (or perhaps it does but has not been released). > I don't know whether anyone has suggested a project to compile the old > idcard/NHS letters into a database, before people forget them, on the lines > of cardinal points in GRO indexes. Perhaps the 1939 registration database > will do this, but I would bet the published version will omit the letters > and numbers. > For people already living at the time the records were set up in 1939, a > different numbering scheme was used, often written as, say, 123.4, > where I understand the first bit was the household,the second your place in > it. Thus 4th person in household 123. > With no check digits, there is no protection against transcription error, > but the new system that replaced it in the nineties has such a protection. > There is also no handy correspondence with birth certificate, but I was > told that males and females could be distinguished, although this may be a > myth. > > >> On 7 July 2014 10:48:29 "Merryl Wells" <merryl.wells@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, I was born 1944 and given a NHS number that reflected the year or date >> on which I was born so was easy for me to remember. However at some point >> it was changed, can't remember exactly when but after I left school, so >> don't think now it would be of any use for family research purposes. >> >> From >> Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. >> E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org >> GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <jjgduffus@gmail.com> >> To: "sog list" <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:21 AM >> Subject: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers >> >> >>> >>> ?Dear All >>> >>> I was. Just wondering if there is a wealth of hidden info in these >>> numbers >>> that we literally carry through life. >>> >>> Is there any good guide to their decoding >>> >>> Julian Duffus >>> >>> Sog member 1978 to present >>> >>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>> in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ To contact the SOG-UK list administrator, send an email to SOG-UK-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the SOG-UK mailing list, send an email to SOG-UK@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 90 *************************************

Hi I always suspected my number, RLDL500, was more than just a co-incidence...my birth certificate, which was issued in Northampton at the beginning of 1945, was no. 500 ....thanks for confirmation ! Carole Sent from my iPad > On 7 Jul 2014, at 14:51, Dave Beakhust <dave@beakhust.com> wrote: > > At the time you and I were born, before the coming of the NHS, we were > issued with national identity numbers, that then went on to be the NHS > number, as following the end of the war,everyone had one. ID cards were not > scrapped till the fifties, after the NHS came in. > Yours and mine are in 2parts, letters, for the place and date of the > registration district of issue, and numbers, very conveniently normally the > "entry number" on the birth certificate. Check it if you did not spot this. > Mine was Brentford, 3rd quarter of 1943, entry number 365, so BAJR365. From > meeting others born in the same district within a year or two, the BA part > seems to be related to Brentford, the other two letters seem to change by date. > I believe that for "national security" reasons, no "decode" of these > letters exists (or perhaps it does but has not been released). > I don't know whether anyone has suggested a project to compile the old > idcard/NHS letters into a database, before people forget them, on the lines > of cardinal points in GRO indexes. Perhaps the 1939 registration database > will do this, but I would bet the published version will omit the letters > and numbers. > For people already living at the time the records were set up in 1939, a > different numbering scheme was used, often written as, say, 123.4, > where I understand the first bit was the household,the second your place in > it. Thus 4th person in household 123. > With no check digits, there is no protection against transcription error, > but the new system that replaced it in the nineties has such a protection. > There is also no handy correspondence with birth certificate, but I was > told that males and females could be distinguished, although this may be a > myth. > > >> On 7 July 2014 10:48:29 "Merryl Wells" <merryl.wells@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, I was born 1944 and given a NHS number that reflected the year or date >> on which I was born so was easy for me to remember. However at some point >> it was changed, can't remember exactly when but after I left school, so >> don't think now it would be of any use for family research purposes. >> >> From >> Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. >> E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org >> GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: <jjgduffus@gmail.com> >> To: "sog list" <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 8:21 AM >> Subject: [SOG-UK] NHS Numbers >> >> >>> >>> âDear All >>> >>> I was. Just wondering if there is a wealth of hidden info in these >>> numbers >>> that we literally carry through life. >>> >>> Is there any good guide to their decoding >>> >>> Julian Duffus >>> >>> Sog member 1978 to present >>> >>> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >>> in the subject and the body of the message >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes >> in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, I agree that to ask the Superintendent of the Cemetery if they still have original records of burials to include George Watson is a very good idea to find his year of burial. I'm investigating a Gullick family in Mississippi and came across some dates on Find A Grave where the people were definitely Gullick but the accompanying photo of the gravestone bears the name Gullett! As it was for husband and wife perhaps it was a replacement stone but I would have thought it rather a big mistake for the stonemason to have made, or whoever instructed him. I suspect once a mistake has been made the person responsible is unlikely to have said 'never mind I'll inscribe another stone for free'. It is always possible that family members who know the names and dates of the people who have been buried never go back to see the gravestone. As family historians we go and visit the burial places of our ancestors or arrange for a photo to be taken if we are unable to travel. I went to visit the cemetery in Bath, Somerset where my Gullick great-grandparents plus a daughter and her husband had been buried, hoping for a gravestone, but there wasn't one so had to ask for the plots to be pointed out to me. Later I met an elderly family member and mentioned it, he looked rather embarrassed and said next time I visited there would be a gravestone as he had been charged with arranging it about thirty years earlier. So, yes, when I next visited there was a nice stone, approximately where I had been shown, but one date was incorrect according to the certificates I had been given. I didn't mention it, just said I had seen it and appreciated that it had been erected. From Merryl Wells of Luton, Beds. E-Mail: merryl.wells@one-name.org GOONS Mem. No. 1757 Reg. ONS: Bawtree; Gullick/ock, Moist/Moyst. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Theresa Green" <t.green@britglass.co.uk> To: <sog-uk@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [SOG-UK] SOG-UK Digest, Vol 9, Issue 87 (new query) > Hi > > I've come across an anomaly with regard to the death of an ancestor and > wonder if anyone might have a theory as to solving my problem please? > > My ancestor, George Watson, was buried in Howff Cemetery, Dundee in April > 1847. I have a picture of his gravestone and can confirm it is he from > several other inscriptions on the tombstone. However, his burial record > on Scotland's People (which shows the original record and is not a > transcript) says he died in April 1848! I've asked SP if they can check > this, but all they did was to look at the previous and following page, > which also says 1848. As far as I'm aware, we are not related to Lazarus > (though I haven't gone that far back yet)! I'm really puzzled by this but > can't imagine the family would not have noticed such an error when the > headstone was put up - or equally that the original record is wrong - am I > going mad or can anyone think of an explanation please? Can anyone tell > me what I might find if I order the "Extract" from SP please? (apparently, > there is a 20 day delay due to backlogs, but I'm not sure what it would > tell me). > > Much obliged fellow hunters. > Thank you > Theresa