Genealogy Chat

In the record for Albert J Tiley and family in Gay Street Bristol in the 1939 register, the year of birth has been changed for five of the six entries, no reason has been given. I've not seen this before, has anyone else?

If we take Albert as an example, it turns out that there are actually two Albert Tileys, one born in each of the years shown, ie the original and the changed one. It looks almost as if someone later has checked the birth date, found an alternative, and "corrected" the register.

TILEY, ALBERT JAMES HULM
GRO Reference: 1870 D Quarter in CLIFTON Volume 06A Page 80

TILEY, ALBERT JAMES VENN
GRO Reference: 1864 J Quarter in CLIFTON Volume 06A Page 78

Can anyone shed any light on this please?

I can't help with why this was done but to me it looks as if the alterations were made at the time the record was written out and not later.

Kath. x

It looks to me as if their ages had been written instead of their year of birth. Albert has 69 crossed off so born in 1870, he would have been 69 in 1939. Hester has 58 crossed out so born in 1881, she would have been 58 in 1939. same as the others in the household.

I agree they've all been changed when the register was originally written.

The enumerator has written their ages in the year column by mistake, and then corrected the figure to the year of birth.

Albert, born 1870, was 64 in 1939.
Hester was aged 58 in 1939; Gladys was 23, and Arthur was 20.

EDIT:
Oops. you've got there before me, Alviegal!

No bother AG, always helps when someone else verifies an answer :-)

Brilliant, thank you lots, that makes sense.

Keith