* 1939 Register

The place to chat and put the world to rights
Post Reply
User avatar
gwilym'smum
Famous
Posts: 233
Joined: 01 Feb 2016 16:28
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

1939 Register

Post by gwilym'smum » 24 Jun 2019 07:47

When the 1939 Register was only on FMP the transcriptions gave a ref. RG101 etc, However when it appeared on Ancestry the ref was totally different and not with the usual RG101 then a string of numbers and letters. I do find the images on Ancestry clearer and sometimes they cannot be found on FMP. How do members record the ref. to be consistent please?
Ann
Researching Mayer, Parr/Parr, Simcock, Beech and all related families

avatar
jbtapscott
Famous
Posts: 248
Joined: 19 Nov 2014 17:52
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Corfu
Contact:

Re: 1939 Register

Post by jbtapscott » 24 Jun 2019 08:46

I don't use Ancestry, so can only advise how I use the RG101 reference found on FMP - I copy it (and other RG references) to the Publication Information field on the Source record in FH. By way of further explanation, I have "FMP" as the Repository on the Source record and use the PI field to hold the FMP Record Set name for other types of data sourced from FMP (e.g. "Devon Baptisms", etc). Both the Repository and the PI are included in the Source details published on my website.
Brent Tapscott ~ researching the Tapscott and Wallace family history
Tapscott & Wallace family tree

avatar
E Wilcock
Megastar
Posts: 884
Joined: 11 Oct 2014 07:59
Family Historian: V6.1
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 1939 Register

Post by E Wilcock » 24 Jun 2019 09:06

I am a creature of habit and still use FMP for the 1939 register. But I have a subscription to ancestry and find the following reference.
(chosen at random)
The National Archives; Kew, London, England; 1939 Register; Reference: RG 101/6169J

The additional reference attached to the person is
Schedule Number: 20
Sub Schedule Number: 11
Enumeration District: RMDB
Registration district: No 2

Is this what you are looking for?
When references like this have to be copied and pasted from the internet, and rearranged into one line to fit the fh Where in source field, I do find it annoying. I usually paste the whole lot into the Note field below the source pane and edit it there. But it is fh that is the problem, not ancestry. And this may be a UK problem?

User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 16865
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: 1939 Register

Post by tatewise » 24 Jun 2019 09:19

I use the RG101 2329A 020 42 EDGH 225 format in Publication Information similar to all other UK Censuses.

Evelyn, when you say "it is fh that is the problem" presumably you are referring to the Where within Source field being only a single line of text, which is more a GEDCOM issue. If FH supported multiple lines in that field then it could not be saved in GEDCOM format, unless 'newline' was replaced by some 'magic code'.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 870
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: 1939 Register

Post by AdrianBruce » 24 Jun 2019 12:59

OK - I give up in embarrassment :? - For my grandparents, FindMyPast have:

Ref: RG101/4003A/010/7 Letter Code: LEOM

Can anyone actually tell me what each of those items actually means? Physically? If I've written this down before, I've lost it!

Yes, RG101 is the TNA Reference for Kew's digital (only) version of the 1939 Register. This is in the TNA Catalogue for RG101:
Arrangement:
The registers were originally arranged within bound volumes, with each volume therefore containing a number of individual register booklets for different enumeration districts. These original volume numbers will be shown as part of the piece descriptions.
(My emphasis)

The Catalogue entry for RG101/4003A is followed by an entry for RG101/4003B, then RG101/4003C, etc. For each one of those, the Volume number is 4003. The entry also seems to suggest that 4003A is the 1939 Register Booklet.

The LEOM Enumeration District covers 4003A, then 4003B. LEON then starts with 4003C. Two booklets per ED looks typical.

So now I'm left with 010/7 - anyone know what those refer to?

I think 7 is the line number on the page in question. And I was getting to thinking that 010 was the page but how I should be counting and from when????????? I just got lost...
Adrian

User avatar
ColeValleyGirl
Megastar
Posts: 1445
Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
Contact:

Re: 1939 Register

Post by ColeValleyGirl » 24 Jun 2019 13:24

According to Lost Cousins (talking about Findmypast)
The references displayed are in this format
Ref: RG101/1100C/019/36 Letter Code: CCVZ
where RG101 is the National Archives reference for the 1939 Register (this doesn't change)
1100C is the piece number
019 is the item number (it identifies a specific page but I couldn't see the number in the image)
36 is the line number on the page - again it's not shown, but you can count down
The Letter Code refers to the area - there's a guide to these codes in the TNA blog, and a list of codes here

You're also given the Schedule Number and Schedule Sub-Number but can't search using this information; people in the same household have the same Schedule Number (the Sub-Number is the line on the Schedule, usually 1,2,3,4 etc)
Page (item) numbers within a piece start at with with the cover page of the piece -- which Findmypast doesn't show but Ancestry does.

avatar
Gowermick
Megastar
Posts: 725
Joined: 13 Oct 2015 07:22
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Swansea

Re: 1939 Register

Post by Gowermick » 24 Jun 2019 14:32

Findmypast uses a reference in the form RG101/0023C/003/31 Letter Code: ABNT
The final /31 in above reference number, indicates Line number, and seeing as I use same reference for anyone else on same page, I ignore.

My source title for the image is in form Census 1939 - RG101/0023C/003 Letter Code: ABNT, from which I can quickly find a copy of actual image, which is stored using filename 1939 0023C P003.jpg.

Wierdly, the downloaded image filename from FMP is in formTNA_R39_0023_0023C_003, but can't understand why FMP feels it necessary to repeat the 0023

NB I know it is not a census, but I use a consistent format for both Censuses and the 1939 Register :D

The transcription include fields Schedule: 19 and Sub-schedule: 2, which I also ignore.
Mike Loney

Using FH 6.2.7, with CC 6.7.37 Windows 10.0.14393 Build14393, LibreOffice 6.1.4.1(x64), Firefox 67.0.1(64Bit) & Thunderbird 60.7.0
Website http://www.loney.tribalpages.com
http://www.mickloney.tribalpages.com

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 870
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: 1939 Register

Post by AdrianBruce » 24 Jun 2019 15:06

Thanks Helen - I had various LostCousins posts for the 1939 bookmarked but not that.

However, even with Peter C's help, I still can't make out the 010/7 bit - or rather, the 010 bit. Yes, the 7 is the line number on the page. But looking at the film-strip on Ancestry (didn't realise that was a bit more useful than the FMP version, so thanks), the top households on each of 3 consecutive pages in Grandpa's road are:
  • Image 1, pair of blank pages
  • Image 2, Ernest Hadfield at street number 10, FMP ref RG101/4003A/003/1 Letter Code: LEOM
  • Image 3, Edmund Johnson at 34, FMP ref RG101/4003A/006/6 Letter Code: LEOM
  • Image 4, Robert Parker at 46, FMP ref RG101/4003A/007/3 Letter Code: LEOM
The line numbers work because the page usually starts with people from the previous householders. But the 3 digit number? I can only guess that it's really an image number and, in the usual fashion, some pages have been imaged 2 or 3 times. Actually - image number would figure because then you have the full means of getting from an index to a digital image.

So it does look as if the three digit 010 bit is only of internal use to FMP and the /7 is redundant if you have the Schedule (as I have).
Adrian

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 870
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: 1939 Register

Post by AdrianBruce » 24 Jun 2019 15:16

Gowermick wrote:... Wierdly, the downloaded image filename from FMP is in formTNA_R39_0023_0023C_003, but can't understand why FMP feels it necessary to repeat the 0023...
I have a very vague feeling that FMP originally showed both the 0023 and the 0023C in its reference. Or maybe I'm just thinking of the image filenames. But, coded up as it is, 0023 is irrelevant. Judging by the TNA Catalogue, 0023 refers to the Bound Volume and 0023C to a Booklet within that Volume - "C" on its own would have been adequate. Or forget the Bound Volume references because TNA doesn't have the physical volumes. But then again, this way it can map to the physical volumes...

Thanks to everyone who commented - it's bugged me every time I cited a 1939 image because I was saying "Item" and not knowing what on earth it meant...
Adrian

User avatar
LornaCraig
Megastar
Posts: 1561
Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: 1939 Register

Post by LornaCraig » 24 Jun 2019 16:05

it's bugged me every time I cited a 1939 image because I was saying "Item" and not knowing what on earth it meant...
This is from Findmypast:
The National Archives' reference number is a unique identifier for a record or images of a record. It consists of a Piece number and Item number. An example of a 1939 Register Piece and Item number is: 1234a/123
The National Archives explains what a Piece and Item Number is here http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help ... -archives/.
I confess the 'explanation' on that TNA page leaves me totally bewildered. Scrolling down to the bit about Item numbers it says
An item is a part of a piece. It can be a bundle, a single document, a file, a sub-file, a pouch, a range of folios and so on....
In other words what constitutes an item depends on what type of record you are looking at. Which doesn't tell us much. :?
Lorna

User avatar
dewilkinson
Famous
Posts: 150
Joined: 04 Nov 2016 19:05
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Oundle, Northamptonshire, England
Contact:

Re: 1939 Register

Post by dewilkinson » 24 Jun 2019 16:42

Out of interest I cite my 1939 register entries like "class:RG101 piece:6610B page:18 line:32 letter code:TVOJ".

Ancestry I believe didn't access the originals, gaining their images from elsewhere, hence they were probably reliant on someone else's way of citing.

There are several different examples of presenting the same citations in different ways. I believe in being consistent ( eg Q1, Q2 or quarter:1 , quarter:2 or Jan-Mar, Apr-Jun..) and providing enough information for someone else to locate the record. Quite a bit of this comes down to personal choice. Even scientific journals have different citation 'rules'.

One thing that does bug me in the 1939 register is that only the administering authority is given (eg the council). Unless the enumerator wrote down the village, you have to work it out for yourself, and the maps on FMP are often miles out. But that is one of life's challenges. Must be a nightmare for overseas users.
David Wilkinson researching Bowtle, Butcher, Edwards, Gillingham, Overett, Ransome, Simpson, and Wilkinson in East Anglia

Deterioration is contagious, and places are destroyed or renovated by the spirit of the people who go to them

User avatar
gwilym'smum
Famous
Posts: 233
Joined: 01 Feb 2016 16:28
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: 1939 Register

Post by gwilym'smum » 24 Jun 2019 16:55

David, that was what was my problem, you get one from FMP and a different one from Ancestry. I totally agree with you about how the locations are recorded. Stoke on Trent is a nightmare as only Stoke is used and not the individual towns and there are lots of streets bearing the same name in each of the towns.
Thanks everyone for all the replies.
Ann
Researching Mayer, Parr/Parr, Simcock, Beech and all related families

User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 870
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: 1939 Register

Post by AdrianBruce » 24 Jun 2019 19:06

LornaCraig wrote:... I confess the 'explanation' on that TNA page leaves me totally bewildered.
Indeed... ;)

I have also scratched my head about what a Piece is - I used to think it was the physical thing that you ordered. Well, it is. Usually. Sort of. I thought. Then one day I ordered a Piece that was a military register. Along came the cardboard box - it had two Pieces in - two registers in this case, each with their own reference but apparently so thin that they put them into cardboard boxes two at a time. Now, for those of us who imagine ourselves IT literate - how does that work in the IT system when it comes to ordering the thing? An order that goes in for one Piece needs to "sign out" two Pieces... :?
Adrian

User avatar
trevorrix
Famous
Posts: 140
Joined: 17 Nov 2002 20:27
Family Historian: V6.2
Location: Suffolk, England

Re: 1939 Register

Post by trevorrix » 29 Jun 2019 17:35

I don't record any references because I think they are unnecessary in this internet age.
Trevor Rix

Post Reply