From: ce11son@yahoo.ca   
      
   On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:07:06 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"   
    wrote:   
      
   >In message , Charles Ellson   
   > writes:   
   >>On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 18:39:53 +0100, Ruth Wilson   
   >> wrote:   
   >[]   
   >>>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.   
   >   
   >Ruth has already said she's found her aunt! Oh, I see - you're   
   >suggesting she might have been live-in staff.   
   >   
   >But are you sure anyway? I thought at least one of the purposes of the   
   >register - or at least, one of the purposes to which it was put - was   
   >the issue of identity cards (and possibly ration cards); for it to have   
   >been usable for that purpose, surely it would have been necessary to   
   >gather details of as many people as possible?   
   >   
   IMU ID card numbers were based on home addresses so people temporarily   
   away (distinct from e.g. evacuated as seems to have been the case with   
   my father, his first wife and umpteen school pupils) would go on the   
   list for where they normally lived. Changing your address did not   
   normally change your ID number; the 1939 address was the anchor point   
   as with my mother whose card had 3 addresses in two different   
   countries.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)