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 *************************************