From: ce11son@yahoo.ca   
      
   On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 18:39:53 +0100, Ruth Wilson   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 12/06/2018 10:06, Richard Smith wrote:   
   >> On 12/06/18 04:10, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >>> In message , Ruth Wilson   
   >>>  writes:   
   >>>> On 10/06/2018 21:57, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >>> []   
   >>>>> date of the  change; and details of people who were born less than 100   
   >>>>> years before  the date you look at it blanked out (e. g. dated after   
   >>>>> 1918-6-10).   
   >>>>>  They remove the blanking if someone convinces them that the person   
   >>>>> is no  longer alive; when it was only FindMyPast that offered this   
   >>>>> record, that  was by for example emailing FMP a copy of the death   
   >>>>> certificate; I'm not  sure now.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> I have found a few anomalies. For example, my husband's aunt - still   
   >>>> very much alive - has her details visible, whereas his uncle -   
   >>>   
   >>> Is she over 100?   
   >>   
   >> I can't comment about Ruth's aunt, but my aunt, who is also still very   
   >> much alive, is listed on the 1939 register with her details visible.   
   >> She's in her early 80s, her date of birth is correct and written clearly   
   >> on the register, and has been transcribed correctly by FMP.  On the same   
   >> page are six other records with visible details for people born after   
   >> 1918, and a further eight closed records.  I have no idea whether any of   
   >> those other six people are still living, but I find it hard to believe   
   >> that all of those records have been opened by a researcher providing FMP   
   >> with their death certificate.  Perhaps one may have been, but all six   
   >> hardly seems credible.  So evidently there is some other process causing   
   >> records to be opened.  Do they attempt to match death records from the   
   >> GRO index automatically, perhaps?  Is so, perhaps my aunt's record has   
   >> been incorrectly matched?  That's easy to believe as her name is an   
   >> exceedingly common one: five other children were born in the same   
   >> quarter with the same first name, middle initial and surname as her, one   
   >> within ten miles of where my aunt was born.  Does Ruth's aunt also have   
   >> a common name?   
   >>   
   >> Richard   
   >   
   >Yes, the aunt does have a fairly common maiden name (Wilson!) but not so   
   >much her married name. She is in her early 80s so nowhere near 100. Her   
   >brother, who is hidden, was a couple of years older, but died after the   
   >'cut off date' of 1991 - as I understand it those who died before this   
   >have their records automatically open (as happened for my Father in law).   
   >   
   >The mystery is that I found my aunt in a maternity hospital and so out   
   >of curiousity checked the birth indexes to find a cousin I have never   
   >heard of, and can't find an infant (or other) death for! Fortunately, I   
   >have much older siblings to pump for information.   
   >   
   >By the way, does anyone know if the register will be revised in future -   
   >i.e. open up more entries as they pass 100 years old?   
   >   
   Unlike a census, I would expect only residents to be shown in the 1939   
   records so in a maternity hospital that ought to be live-in workers   
   and their families but not patients.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)