The 1939 Register

Does it bother them that their records are open?

 

You could try asking FMP what proof they used to open the entries. Do they have common names like John Smith so could be someone with same DOB

 

My uncle didn't seem at all concerned that his record had been opened, and I doubt he'll even tell his brother. I suppose he thinks that will all the information 'out there' already, a tiny bit more is not that important.

I had wondered if FMP would respond to me contacting them without using their form. I'll give it a try.

 

After posting here yesterday I contacted Find My Past to explain the situation. I told them that my uncle by marriage and his brother live 200 miles away which would mean they would have to post their ID documents to me - and as I have never even met uncle-in-law's brother, he was very unlikely to send it to me. I also said that I realised they couldn't close these entries without ID but I hoped their quality control could be improved so it didn't happen again.
After a few emails back and forth, I was asked to tell them which record I was referring to, I sent that yesterday evening and found their reply when I turned my laptop on this morning. The email said that they normally require evidence that the person is still alive, gave examples of the documents they would need, then concluded by saying that in this case the record has now been taken down and will be removed within the next 72 hours.


One email said that the criteria for opening records are that the person must have been born over 100 years ago or under 100 years with evidence that they had died and that periodic reviews were done to open more records on these grounds. The two records in question were originally closed and only opened with the most recent batch. I can only assume they have checked their system and realised that neither of these records actually met their criteria.



It was worth contacting them!

 

I have been somewhat surprised to find entries of family members who have died in N.Z. being opened i.e. no UK record of death.....but pleased

 

If they've opened these two records when they shouldn't have done, how many other records did they open of people who are still alive and well under 100? My uncle may not have been worried but others could be. Maybe, just maybe, they'll be more careful about their checking procedures in future.

 

Well aside from a reader thinking the subject is deceased, I can't really think of the harm in it. Hold on....maybe they should not have been at that address....maybe don't want folk to know they worked as a rat catcher or even worse occupation....?

 

Eating Housekeeper ???

 

The main concern I can see is that the exact date of birth is shown. It is just one bit of 'proof of identity' that is needed for various things these days.

 

I have come across what cannot be other than false age (certainly of year of birth) declarations in the 1939 Register and here I clarify that I have checked with the original image. For quite some time I have stood my ground on the actual birth dates in the Register, against one other Ancestry Researcher ( who points to others who agree with him) who argues, quite convincingly that the dates I show are absurd for the two parents of the ancestor we have in common. I will just quote the year and the given name for parents John 1874 and Ellen 1883. Yes there is no denying (or none I can dispute) that John's parents JT & ME were born 1864 & 1866 respectively. With Ellen's parents more plausible at 1863 & 1861. The general consensus is John was born 1891 (some 17 years different to the Register) and even Ellen at 1888 (5 years adrift).

In my mind there is no doubt whatsoever that the Register entry is for the right family, not only living at an address which is known to be correct by family, but correctly recording two sons, the elder being the common ancestor, born 1913 & his sibling 1914. We also know for sure that the elder child's birthday (the common ancestor) was indeed as shown in the Register.

There are birth registrations for John showing 1891 (not 1874), a marriage to Ellen in 1913 and the birth of their first child the same year. In the 1891 Census JT is 28 (1863/4) & ME 30 (1861) & their daughter Ellen aged 3 (1888). Which would all be nice were it not for contradictions of the Register. So using the Sherlock Holmes principle 'once you have discounted the impossible,whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth' I fall back on research data, which in this case is quite probable.

So I ask myself why did the entry for JT show '74' and ME '83'? Could it be deliberate or a transcription mistake, remembering the facts will stand for considerable time and there are no signs of any amendments to the original script. It would make JT 65 instead of the more youthful 48, and ME 56 instead of 51. All very mysterious but for now I have but to agree with the general consensus based on other research and ignore the Register dates for both parents.

 

Can I just correct the support information provided previously by saying it should have read...

The 1891 Census resolves both John and Ellen's ages as, in the case of the former, parents JT & ME were aged 27 (1864) & 24 (1866/7) and son John aged 3 months (1891). In Ellen’s case her parents were aged 28(1863) & 30 (1861) with Ellen aged 3 (1888).

That aside an ominous discovery records John actually died in 1974, so perhaps the 1939 Register recording a birth year of (18)74 -instead of (18) 91- was a prophesy? Spooky and suitable for a Halloween posting perhaps?

 

I spent some time puzzling over the green inked annotation on the RH page of the Register against John's name: "PWC 77/ 28 38". I learn from Roots Chat that almost certainly stands for a Post War Credit refund claim which I learn were paid upon reaching the age of 65 for men or 60 for women. Between 1954 -1972 they were repayable on death or bankruptcy. After 1973 they were paid to (surviving) holders on production of their PWC Certificate or to their estate on death.

As John died 1974 I presume they were paid to his estate in 1977?

 

Having downloaded a pdf Birth Certificate to establish 1891 as the birth year for John (which it did) I am now puzzled by interpreting his father's occupation (JT in the example given). I'm not sure why I am puzzled because I already knew from the 1891 Census that he was a 'retired GPO Van driver', then the certificate shows what looks like (but I'm sure isn't) Mail Cash Driver. Cash? Would an 1891 GPO Van Driver transport Cash (unless perhaps in the form of postal orders -if they existed then - or registered mail- ditto).

I wouldn't mind but the handwriting is excellent. Can anyone interpret the middle word other than 'Cash'? (I would just say with the benefit of examining the rest of the Certificate the letter 'r' (lower case) appears just as shown but no upper case 'C 'or 'G' for comparison and 'h' elsewhere has a distinctive open loop).

 

It looks like 'Cart' to me. I would say definitely an 'r' not an 's' for the 3rd letter. To me the most ambiguous letter is the last one, but as it isn't like the other 'h' on the certificate, I would go for 't'.

 

I would also say cart - this link refers to their pay in 1911

 

Thank you both Pauline & trebor, yes I think 'cart' has it despite the last letter ambiguity. Thanks also for the link trebor. I think I could have saved myself some puzzling as I see I found his occupation as 'retired GPO van driver' from the 1939 register, not the Census. So by the 30's he had obviously progressed to a Van.

Even more interesting he claims retirement aged 48 and thus living up to the 'assumed' aged of 65 his 'false' birth year of 1874 shows. I think I will bow out on that now.