The 1939 Register

I re-read the page where I read the year 1991 again to make sure - apparently it is because the 1939 Register was continually updated until 1991, and thus those who died before 1991 have already had their records on the Register updated. Anyone who died after 1991 has to have their record "opened". You can find the post here, under the "Officially Closed Records" subheading. http://www.findmypast.com.au/1939register/1939-register-getting-started

 

Believe it or not even as your polar opposite (as verified by my scholarly attempts to precis only to have the teacher explain my precises' were longer than the original -I have posted about this previously) I do admire brevity. Not capable of it myself of course, but have worked with people of the same mind set. My last Boss was one such; he believed more than one piece of paper on a desk was slothful, and a missive of more than 10 words would draw a questioning furrow to his brow. However he also hated jargon (his favourite word) so anyone who used Short Forms or Ancronyms would be told to say it again in "English". A great man who I still see from time to time and has just had his 81st birthday.

By now I am of course VSOT (very seriously off topic) so all I will ask Phil is that you combine with your admirable brevity -and Peter is himself a devotee of brevity - less of SoT and the use of the 1939 Register jargon, and just explain things in English.

 

Looks chastened and goes for a sulk

But, before I disappear, when in full-time employment it was obligatory to introduce short-forms/acronyms on first use thus - slightly off topic (SoT) - so there was no confusion throughout the document. This was "mumble" years ago and I've "lost" the habit.

Phil

 

You've lost me,mumble,mumble......

 

Another man given to brevity, and occasional humour. Shame this wasn't the occasion!

 

That explains things and you are not alone especially on some of the Computer Geek Forums I occasionally browse. The word 'geek' gives it away and unless you follow the patois, you are lost. This Forum is vastly different and has members who all share Family History research interests but have varying degrees of experience and skill sets with computers. The old maxim KISS ("Keep it simple stupid") -the use of the short form and explanation will not have escaped you I'm sure - works best as we have all found when trying to explain something we fully understand, but others do not.

Incidentally apropos of nothing one wag (no not you emjay) once described my prose by saying Bob does not have a cat sitting on the mat. He has a Persian kitten reclining on his namesake carpet, bought from a flee market in London. If you enquire further he will tell you the cost of the carpet and when the cat is next due its grooming. I've never been able to improve on that.

 

As an annual subscriber to FMP, I got my first glimpse of the 1939 register this week.

I knew my mother had been evacuted to Attingham Park, near Shrewsbury (now National Trust), but was surprised to find out she was already there in September 1939. On a rather poignant note, she appears on the register in a sea of black, in other words EVERY other record on the page of 45 schoolgirls (presumably) is closed. I assume that means that amongst that cohort she was the only one known to have died before 1991 (she died in 1976)?

As a side note, my wife and I visited Attingham Park last summer, and I mentioned to one of the guides that I believed my mother was evacuated there during the war. To my surprise he correctly identified the name of the school that had been evacuated there. He also told me that they were not there for very long, because it was decided that they were more in danger from the attentions of the airmen in the nearby RAF station than they were from Hitlers bombs raining down on Birmingham!

 

An interesting post and welcome to the Forum. Yes quite poignant to find only your mother showing out of 45 schoolgirls. Although only household members I lost my mother in 1964 and father in 1982 and both show in the 1939 Register, whereas some of their siblings who died in the late 90's and early 00's remain redacted.

 

I thought I'd better post a mea culpa about spelling 'flea' as 'flee' before Emjay spots it, then I am doomed; DOOMED I tell ya!

 

Both my grandparents should show on the 1939 register regardless, since they were born in 1909 and 1915 respectively, but my grandmother is blanked out through an error that I still quite seem to figure out to explain to get it opened by FindMyPast. She died in 1965, but in Australia (so not automatically updated), plus they incorrectly gave her a surname she never had so they must have confused her with someone else (I thought I'd found the wrong person the first time I looked her up, since her maiden name was in brackets and the wrong surname replacing it) - I wouldn't have thought her first name was all that common, but she must have shared it with someone! I can't ask them to open the entry, since I don't have a copy of my grandmother's 1965 Australian death certificate (and I'd have to get my mother to apply for it, otherwise they won't let me get it - as annoying as it is), and her sister, listed on the same page is open, and she is also dead, but I haven't access to her death certificate from 2012 either!

Any ideas on how to ask FindMyPast to edit the entry, even if it means that my grandmother's sister's entry is closed again, even though she has left us?

 

As my earlier post where I assumed that a redacted entry in my grandparent's household was that of my mother. I eventually found her staying with her brother somewhere I had not expected to find her.

We can't be sure that redacted entries are for people we expect to be at that address.

 

I have just sent in an Australian death certificate and await with interest to see if the record will be opened. It is a Melbourne area death cert and there is no date of birth on it.

 

It definitely is my grandmother - she is visible on the search results and can be found by searching her name and birthdate (with the incorrect surname), and while there is a single redacted entry in her household, that would be the one for her 10 year old half-sister, born in 1929, who is currently visible on the entry instead. Her other sister married in 1938, and I have currently been unable to find her or her husband in the register. As for my grandmother's other two sisters, one died as an infant in 1934 and the other wasn't born until 1941. My own grandparents didn't marry until the 1940s.

I will look forward to seeing it to - I will have to ask my mother if she has death certificates for either of her parents, and if not, I may ask her to apply for both of her parents - as South Australia only lets next of kin order death certificates from that time frame. I myself am a Melbournian, so it would be interesting to see what happens.

 

Yes, I want to get a death certificate for my uncle in Western Australia but the documents you have to send in is out of this world - they have tightened up on buying certificates in Australia. Didn't have these problems a few years back. My uncle has been dead since 1986, so why they are being so cautious I can't understand. If he'd died last week or last year I could have understood it.

 

The more I ponder on the usefulness of the 1939 Register, the more I appreciate the part it played in laying the foundation for producing Identity Cards and Ration Books at comparatively short notice. At that time everything was manually recorded and maintained by a variety of civil servants, existing and those taken on for the task. It served its purpose and became a real ‘tour de force’ lasting well beyond it intended war and rationing years. However we must not forget its upkeep was done by people and as we all know 'to err is human' and ‘bloopers’ inevitably crept into its pages.

And then some 70 odd years later FMP applied to TNA to seek permission to transcribe the 1939 Register. A massive task but when complete a wonderful follow on from the 1911 Census and 5 years before we have chance of viewing the 1921 equivalent (and sadly all the English & Welsh 1931 Census records were lost in a fire); so what FH Researcher wouldn’t welcome it with open arms? But we should all bear in mind its original purpose and accept it for what it is, warts and all. And as much as I dislike the redactions still in force some 75 years later, have to accept in this politically correct age, the 100-year rule was inevitable.

So treasure its strengths: family members of course with accurate birth dates and addresses (some 28 years after those yielded by the 1911 Census) - quite a treasure trove. Then there are job occupations, and how family members chose to be styled and their status changes by marriage in coloured inks. Best of all tackling puzzles like: what ‘x’ was doing living with ‘y’ instead of ‘z; all grist to the mill and will be many a springboard towards further investigations.

I admit I have yet to find the need to apply to open a closed account but that may happen (assuming I have the evidence or consider it worth obtaining). I also have little use for its reference nomenclature: e.g. RG101/1234A/003/20 Letter code: ABC stuff- but am willing to concede that may become important at some point. Meanwhile it is rewarding having another research medium within the FMP world-wide subscription, however good, bad or indifferent various researches turn out to be.

 

Does that mean you do not use the HO/RG "reference nomenclature" when you add Census data to your tree or that you use some other referencing system for the 1939 Register?

I actually use slightly different reference formats to those on FindMyPast/Ancestry based on my understanding of the TNA* and GRO* elements (which is why Family Tree Analyser (FTA) didn't originally identify my 1911 references )

Phil

I decided everyone is likely to understand these acronyms

 

I've been adding lots of birthdates and seeing extra names for women has been a great help. My husband's relative, Andrew Sharpe, married a lady called Mary Sanders. She obviously outlived her first husband (Andrew Sharpe) because written in green near her name was the extra surname of RADWELL which turned out to be her second husband's surname - 1939 Register gives tons of help!