Author Topic: 1939 Register - Annotations and What They Mean?  (Read 3042 times)

Offline poissonrouge

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 2
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register - Annotations and What They Mean?
« Reply #9 on: Friday 11 August 17 12:34 BST (UK) »
Hi and thanks for the welcome Rosie. Have been a member for a while to occasionally view topics but this is the first time I've posted. Yes it was Lancashire, Manchester in fact, which also had me wondering about the MC.

Cheers

Roger
Fish, Whittle, Rushton, Burgess, Aspinall, Charnock, Dodd, Fantom - Cheshire/Lancs.
Garlick - Lancs/Worcs/Warwicks.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline rosie99

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 22,022
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register - Annotations and What They Mean?
« Reply #10 on: Saturday 12 August 17 11:00 BST (UK) »
Hi Roger
I hadn't looked to see when you registered  ;D

Mine was on Heysham, Lancashire so it probably is the county reference.  I am sure someone will advise us if we are wrong.  :)
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline MarkyP

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register - Annotations and What They Mean?
« Reply #11 on: Monday 14 August 17 14:03 BST (UK) »
Hoping someone might be able to help with an annotation in red after an entry name plus some odd looking characters over a date of birth. Any clues would be gratefully accepted.  :)
Jerome - Hampshire (including IOW)
Parsons - Surrey, Somerset and Devon

Offline MarkyP

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register - Annotations and What They Mean?
« Reply #12 on: Monday 14 August 17 14:14 BST (UK) »
Also, just noticed to the right of the name, can anyone shed some light on this?

Thanks.
Jerome - Hampshire (including IOW)
Parsons - Surrey, Somerset and Devon

Offline upstream

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register - Annotations and What They Mean?
« Reply #13 on: Thursday 31 August 17 19:15 BST (UK) »
This is a fascinating thread which raises the question 'Who did the annotations and why?'.
It is understandable that, as the 1939 Register was used as the basis for Ration Books, it would be worth while continuing to update it through to the mid 1950's.  But to 1990?
I guess the work was done by or in conjunction with GRO and funded by the taxpayer.  Bearing in mid the Register was not digitized, this must have been a major task and presumably, someone thought it was worthwhile keeping tabs on people all this while.  Sounds a bit Big Brother-ish to me.
Having said that, the annotated notes have been a help to me in identifying relatives.

Offline josey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,089
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register - Annotations and What They Mean?
« Reply #14 on: Thursday 31 August 17 22:18 BST (UK) »
The register was used as a resource for the NHS which is why it was kept up to date with name changes for women.
Seeking: baptism Philip Murray 1813 nr Chatham Kent, death Ralph James Dunn b 1808 1861 - 1868 in Newington 1861
IRE: Kik DRAY[EA], PURCELL, WHITE: Mea LYNCH: Tip MURRAY, SHEEDY: Wem ALLEN; Dub PENROSE: Lim DUNN[E], FRAWLEY, WILLIAMS.
87th Regiment RIF: MURRAY
ENG; Marylebone HAYTER, TROU[W]SDALE, Con HAMPTON, TREMELLING Wry CLEGG, HOLLAND, HORSEFIELD Coventry McGINTY
CAN; Nova Scotia [Halifax, Pictou]: HOLLAND, WHITE, WILLIAMSON; Quebec [Montreal], O'DRISCOLL

Offline upstream

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register - Annotations and What They Mean?
« Reply #15 on: Thursday 31 August 17 22:54 BST (UK) »
Thanks Josey, Good explanation, although you would have thought that keeping track of people through National Insurance Numbers would have been easier.

Online CarolA3

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,211
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register - Annotations and What They Mean?
« Reply #16 on: Friday 01 September 17 09:08 BST (UK) »
I guess the work was done by or in conjunction with GRO and funded by the taxpayer.  Bearing in mid the Register was not digitized, this must have been a major task and presumably, someone thought it was worthwhile keeping tabs on people all this while.  Sounds a bit Big Brother-ish to me.
Thanks Josey, Good explanation, although you would have thought that keeping track of people through National Insurance Numbers would have been easier.

None of this had anything to do with GRO.  As Josey says, the NHS 'inherited' the Register after rationing and identity cards ended in the early 1950s, and continued to update it until 1991.  It was simply a record of people's names, addresses, and dates of birth - a customer database on paper - nothing more sinister than that.

Obviously NINOs would be of no use to the NHS as they are issued by HMRC for entirely different purposes.

Carol
OXFORDSHIRE / BERKSHIRE
Bullock, Cooper, Boler/Bowler, Wright, Robinson, Lee, Prior, Trinder, Newman, Walklin, Louch

Offline upstream

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: 1939 Register - Annotations and What They Mean?
« Reply #17 on: Friday 01 September 17 11:33 BST (UK) »
Thanks Carol,  You are right, guess I should have said National Health Service Numbers.  I wonder why these are not annotated on the register.
The more I learn about this, the more surprising it becomes.  By 1989 there would have been 50 years worth of new-borns not included on the register so its usefulness must have deteriorated year on year.  Someone must have thought this was appropriate use of NHS manpower ..............