* 1939 Register
- gwilym'smum
- Superstar
- Posts: 302
- Joined: 01 Feb 2016 16:28
- Family Historian: V6.2
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
1939 Register
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
Ann
Researching Mayer, Parr/Parr, Simcock, Beech and all related families
-
- Megastar
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 19 Nov 2014 17:52
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Corfu, Greece
- Contact:
Re: 1939 Register
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
Tapscott & Wallace family tree
-
- Megastar
- Posts: 1181
- Joined: 11 Oct 2014 07:59
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: 1939 Register
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?
(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?
Genealogy site at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.anc ... /~wilcock/
- tatewise
- Megastar
- Posts: 28423
- Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
- Contact:
Re: 1939 Register
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'.
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
- AdrianBruce
- Megastar
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: 1939 Register
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:
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...
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:
(My emphasis)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.
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
- ColeValleyGirl
- Megastar
- Posts: 5504
- Joined: 28 Dec 2005 22:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Cirencester, Gloucestershire
- Contact:
Re: 1939 Register
According to Lost Cousins (talking about Findmypast)
Page (item) numbers within a piece start at with with the cover page of the piece -- which Findmypast doesn't show but Ancestry does.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)
Helen Wright
ColeValleyGirl's family history
ColeValleyGirl's family history
Re: 1939 Register
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
The transcription include fields Schedule: 19 and Sub-schedule: 2, which I also ignore.
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
The transcription include fields Schedule: 19 and Sub-schedule: 2, which I also ignore.
Mike Loney
Website http://www.loney.tribalpages.com
http://www.mickloney.tribalpages.com
Website http://www.loney.tribalpages.com
http://www.mickloney.tribalpages.com
- AdrianBruce
- Megastar
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: 1939 Register
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:
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).
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
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
- AdrianBruce
- Megastar
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: 1939 Register
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...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...
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
- LornaCraig
- Megastar
- Posts: 3202
- Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Oxfordshire, UK
Re: 1939 Register
This is from Findmypast:it's bugged me every time I cited a 1939 image because I was saying "Item" and not knowing what on earth it meant...
I confess the 'explanation' on that TNA page leaves me totally bewildered. Scrolling down to the bit about Item numbers it saysThe 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/.
In other words what constitutes an item depends on what type of record you are looking at. Which doesn't tell us much.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....
Lorna
- dewilkinson
- Superstar
- Posts: 286
- Joined: 04 Nov 2016 19:05
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Oundle, Northamptonshire, England
- Contact:
Re: 1939 Register
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.
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
Deterioration is contagious, and places are destroyed or renovated by the spirit of the people who go to them
- gwilym'smum
- Superstar
- Posts: 302
- Joined: 01 Feb 2016 16:28
- Family Historian: V6.2
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: 1939 Register
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
Thanks everyone for all the replies.
Ann
Researching Mayer, Parr/Parr, Simcock, Beech and all related families
- AdrianBruce
- Megastar
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: South Cheshire
- Contact:
Re: 1939 Register
Indeed...LornaCraig wrote:... I confess the 'explanation' on that TNA page leaves me totally bewildered.
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
- trevorrix
- Famous
- Posts: 242
- Joined: 17 Nov 2002 20:27
- Family Historian: V7
- Location: Suffolk, England
Re: 1939 Register
I don't record any references because I think they are unnecessary in this internet age.
Trevor Rix