* dies after 1911 cant find not on 1939 Census

[jsphillips]

Hi
With the new 1921 Census I want to produce a report of :-
those records/people who appear on 1911 census but I cant find death or emigration thereafter and who do not appear on the 1939 register.
I can then use this list to see if they appear on the 1921 Census so if not, this gives me a clue as to whether they did die (or hide) or emigrate etc
Thanks

[ADC65]

Do you use Flags to record whether someone has a Census for a particular year? If you do then this exercise is quite easy to accomplish with a Query. I'm sure others will be able to help if you don't use Flags.

[tatewise]

I've moved this to the FH General Usage forum because it does not need a Plugin.

A straightforward Individual type of Query with Rows tab filters will produce such a list.
The filters would be:
Add if %INDI.CENS[last].DATE% was on 2 APR 1911
Exclude if %INDI.DEAT[1].DATE% was earlier than 19 JUN 1921
Exclude if %INDI.EMIG[1].DATE% was earlier than 19 JUN 1921

The first filter checks that the last recorded Census Event was for 1911.
So if there was a later 1939 Census Event that filter would not add the Individual.

The other two filters check whether a Death or Emigration event happened before the 1921 Census.

[davidf]

Might it be more useful to add if the last census was Not 1939 and then to exclude if birth was more than say 100 years before 1921?
That way you would pick up those who may have been on say the 1901 Census but somehow escaped the attention of the 1911 Census (or have not yet been found on it)? That goes beyond what the OP requested.

Why might the OP want to exclude people on the 1939 Census from what I imagine would be a work list for the 1921 Census?

[Mark1834]

I'd add a line to the Query that calculates the cost - £3.50 per original image, even for FMP subscribers . At least it's cheaper than earlier exclusive releases, and probably not unreasonable given the costs of production - after all, they are a business, not a charity.

[tatewise]

I tend to agree with you David, so replace the %INDI.CENS[last].DATE% filter with:
Exclude if %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE% was earlier than 1820

Mark, it is not possible to add one line to a Query like that.
However, the maths is easy because the Result Set says how many rows so just multiply that by £3.50

[Gowermick]

I'd add a line to the Query that calculates the cost - £3.50 per original image, even for FMP subscribers . At least it's cheaper than earlier exclusive releases, and probably not unreasonable given the costs of production - after all, they are a business, not a charity.

But how would you find correct image, without paying an extra £2.50 for the transcription. You’d have to budget for £6.00 for each image you want! I disagree that this is a reasonable charge, it is exhorbitant (IMHO) if you already have a subscription,

[Mark1834]

Mike (L) - why would you want the transcript as well? You can decipher the householder’s handwriting as well as the transcriber, with the advantage that you know the family context. Hopefully, most of the time you can go straight to the image.

I can’t remember how long it took the 1911 Census and 1939 Register to be available elsewhere, but it was probably a year or more.

[fhtess65]

I gather the Search results should give enough info for most people to make an educated guess which one fits their ancestor. That's where a lot of prep work comes in - make sure you have as many details as possible, use other record sets (electoral rolls, directories) to locate your ancestor, and hope that the records have been transcribed properly. This time they used a professional company to do the transcriptions, part of the reason for the cost.

I intend to transcribe the census images myself and will select only the ones I absolutely need at first. Once they have recouped money, the census will be included in a subscription package. It would have cost a LOT of money to do this well and as frustrating as it is to have to pay, I do understand the reasoning behind it. It's either this short-term pain, or they raise subscriptions substantially. I know which I'd prefer.

Teresa

I'd add a line to the Query that calculates the cost - £3.50 per original image, even for FMP subscribers . At least it's cheaper than earlier exclusive releases, and probably not unreasonable given the costs of production - after all, they are a business, not a charity.

But how would you find correct image, without paying an extra £2.50 for the transcription. You’d have to budget for £6.00 for each image you want! I disagree that this is a reasonable charge, it is exhorbitant (IMHO) if you already have a subscription,

[Gowermick]

I gather the Search results should give enough info for most people to make an educated guess which one fits

That’s my point. Current FMP Search results don’t give a clue to where person was born, just where they lived. And their idea of English geography is sadly lacking. Sometimes where they were living does not always align with what is actually written on census image. Also, it is not uncommon to see 6 or more results matching your search criteria, with no clue which is correct one. Only by looking at transcription can you determine which is correct image to look at,

[LornaCraig]

Current FMP Search results don’t give a clue to where person was born, just where they lived.

That's not true. Admittedly the FMP results include a column for only the county of birth but you can enter more details in the search fields to narrow things down. I start by entering just the county and and if that throws up too many results I add a 'town' (which may only be a village, but if you can find it in the 'browse' list and/or it is prompted for when you start to type the name it will work). I'm assuming the same search criteria will be available for the 1921 census.

FMP search fields.jpg (83.75 KiB) Viewed 4899 times

[Gowermick]

Lorna,
I was referring to the actual search results screen!
I know you can specify birth place, but search result screen doesn’t usually show them, only where the people were living.
You have to check the transcription, which may only show county, but more often than not you have to view the actual image to see the actual birth town, just lazy transcription if you ask me!

[LornaCraig]

Yes, but the results screen only includes results which meet the criteria you enter in the search fields. So if you specify the 'town' of birth when you search, you know that all the results you see will be people born in that town. I realise, of course, that transcription errors or mistakes in the original record may mean you have to widen the search, but in the majority of cases it works.

And by 1921 most people were a bit more savvy about their own ages and places of birth, so hopefully the original records will be somewhat more reliable than some of the earlier censuses, making searching easier.

[AdrianBruce]

... I know you can specify birth place, but search result screen doesn’t usually show them, only where the people were living. ...

1911 Census results do show the birth place. Quite what the 1921 search results will show is not known to me yet...

[ColeValleyGirl]

1911 Census results do show the birth place. Quite what the 1921 search results will show is not known to me yet...

Adrian, you must get your crystal ball serviced...

[jsphillips]

Thank you all for your help and interesting statements especially the query which bring ups only some 193 results . My main concern was without trawling through some 1700 records to get a list of those who qualify for the 1921 census. Further tweeking comes later. I have a FMP full subscription at it appears that I qualify for a 10% discount.
I wonder how long before Ancestry will try to live off FMP as previous

[Mark1834]

A better description would be "when will the balance tip towards FMP creating more income from licensing the dataset to other providers rather than generating income from pay-per-view access?". Personally, I favour one company doing it right and sharing the content, rather than several independent and substandard (i.e. lowest cost) transcripts. Time will tell whether they have "done it right"...

[Gowermick]

The trouble with that idea, is that no one company does it 100% right! At least with two or more companies doing the transcription, there is a good chance one of them will be correct
I’ve lost count of the times I couldn’t find someone in a census on one site, only to find them easily using another site. Having all your eggs in one basket is not a good idea!

[ColeValleyGirl]

I'm certain that it's up to TNA to grant additional licences (not FMP), and that FMP will have a period of exclusivity to allow them to recoup their investment. Whether/when FMP roll it into their subscription products will depend on whether the pay-per-image/transcription generates a decent income stream and/or their judgement about whether including the census in subscription products will attract more subscribers. I suspect we won't see it in the subscription products until their exclusivity is over...

TNA cannot however grant a licence to FMP's transcriptions/indexing and it won't be in FMP's commercial interests to allow competitors to use them, so there will inevitably be different indices. Whether competitors can use the already digitised images will depend on who 'owns' those -- I suspect it will be TNA, because no competitor is going to go want to bear the costs of the same digitisation process when they cannot have exclusivity.

The 1939 register is a slightly different situation, as TNA seem to have an ongoing relationship with FMP for updating the images as redactions for living people are removed either by the passage of time or by customers asking for it (and providing proof of death). FMP update the images and (I believe) provide those updated images to Ancestry (possibly vi TNA). But -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- Ancestry have their own indices/transcriptions.

[E Wilcock]

The 1939 register is not at the National Archive. It was retained in order to register people in the National Health Service. And any queries about the images ( for instance where vital name information has been cropped off at the margin) have to be forwarded to that agency and are not dealt with in the NA.

[ColeValleyGirl]

For the 1939 register, TNA managed digitisation in partnership with FMP. Licences have since been granted to Ancestry and MyHeritage.

The original register books have indeed been retained by NHS Digital (who no longer provide an access service), but the digitised records can be viewed free of charge at TNA. It isn't clear any more how you can access information that has not been clearly digitised.

If you wish to have redactions removed, you must apply via FMP or (if you don't have access to FMP) to TNA.. (Same contact points if you wish to report an record that should be closed but is not).

[victor]

1939 is an Electoral Roll not a census. I have access to lots of these in Ancestry.
If there are living people the names are blanked out. Living people are determined by their ages. Those under 100 (living or not) are usually blanked out though not always (my brother and sisters names have been blanked out). There have been instances of names of daughters with their subsequent married name written over

Victor

[Gowermick]

Victor,
Being pedantic, can I point out that the 1939 register is not an electoral roll, which are something completely different and produced annually to record those eligible to vote.

Th register was a on-off, and has been used for various purposes since it was created, such as for issuing NHS registration cards. It has been kept reasonably up to date, and as you pointed out, women have their surname modified on marriage, with the date the change took place.

[victor]

My comment about the 1939 Register was because many people treat it as a census when it is not. It was created to register those living in the country when war broke out. The register was subsequently use to register people on the NHS when it was created in 1948.

The modern electoral rolls we see these days list those people who are entitled to vote. Those who are not on the register will not get any voting papers

Not all people can see the register as people have the option of having their name hidden. I am one who opted for this option.

Victor

[bjayinoz]

I tend to agree with you David, so replace the %INDI.CENS[last].DATE% filter with:
Exclude if %INDI.BIRT[1].DATE% was earlier than 1820

Still learning, so this may be missing something.
If you replace the last census date with the suggested birthdate filter, wouldn't that return everyone born after 1820 - not just those in England?
thanks - Brian