Genealogy Forum UK

I have permission to post this from Guy Etchells who passes this on

"Access to the 1921 census

In times of economic stress such as these the government might be open
to any idea that could generate useful revenue and the 1921 census is
one such project.

A way to generate income, provide jobs and boost the economy all at the
same time without making cuts.
Such a policy must be popular with the electorate.

The National Audit Office report on the release of the 1901 census
stated that the internet access to the 1901 generated revenues of £4.5
million by October 2003, less than one year.
In five years that amounts to a conservative sum of £22.5 million and
useful figure for even a government to play with.

I would therefore like to suggest a campaign to encourage the government
to release the 1921 now.
Now is the time to write to Cabinet Ministers and Members of Parliament
we may be able to obtain a change in policy.

I have added a posting to the new hmg Your Freedom site

http://tinyurl.com/2vju6b9

If you want access to the 1921 census please visit and add your vote there
Your vote is important please use it
Cheers
Guy"

Wouldn't that require a referendum?

When people filled out the 1921 census they did so with stated access and privacy legislation in place.

We are now asking for that legislation to be retrospectively removed.

I will add my name to the list but I think it is a lost cause.

Constitutional lawyers would cost more than the profits.

I may be wrong, but it was my understanding that although we think of the 1911 census (England and Wales) as having been released 'early', technically it was actually late. The reason being that it was unique of all the census taken in that the clause which specified that the personally identifiable information would be sealed for a period of 100 years was omitted from the Act of Parliament which permitted the 1911 census to be taken, and it was therefore successfully argued that this reduced the closure period to a 'more standard' 70 years. (I understand that they upheld 100 years for the last column as this was 'medical' information.) All of the other census Acts contained this clause so there would there would be little or no chance of securing early release. In the same way, the Scottish 1911 census remains closed and will not be released early because the Scots did not omit the clause. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see the 1921 census released early, but I'd be very surprised to see it happen. Of course, it the last one for a while as the 1931 was destroyed and the 1941 was never taken. Don't think I'll be around for the release of the 1951!!!!

well there on about the last one might be 2011 as they can get the info from else where credit ref, post office etc bit dodge me think as people will slip the net and come 2111 they will be kaput

I was reading that the other day Peter.
I dont know what I think about it all really.
Jo

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... years.html

As I have said before, future genealogists are stuffed anyway.

Take my daughters for instance.

I am the father of both.

My wife gave birth to both.

But they both have different genetic mothers.

A friend of ours has given birth to two children who are genetically her husband's and her sister's.

My youngest daughter has a friend who had two female parents and whose genetic father is a gay man married to another gay man.

We have several friends who never changed their surname when they married.

De-facto is also becoming more amd more common.

So I don;t think the lack of a census will be the real issue.

MarkCDodd wrote:As I have said before, future genealogists are stuffed anyway.

Take my daughters for instance.

I am the father of both.

My wife gave birth to both.

But they both have different genetic mothers.

A friend of ours has given birth to two children who are genetically her husband's and her sister's.

My youngest daughter has a friend who had two female parents and whose genetic father is a gay man married to another gay man.

We have several friends who never changed their surname when they married.

De-facto is also becoming more amd more common.

So I don;t think the lack of a census will be the real issue.

I think you're right - take my sister, married twice, one kid with hubby number two, one kid on the way with new partner. When she divorced number one she kept his surname, even after marriage number two. She then changed her surname to hubby number two after the birth of their child, so that she and the child would have the same surname. Don't know what she'll do this time. And not to mention all the step kids etc.
Talk about confusing for future generations . I hope you lot get my drift!!!!
As far as I'm concerned, I contribute a little myself, I'm married but I've kept my maiden name - hell I've had it long enough Not that I'm planning on kids, so it's the nieces and nephews offspring that'll be confused

As far as the lack of census is concerned, I know most of what I need to know, it's extra padding really. But if will be a bind with two census's missing -could create a lot of confusion in the future genealogists!!!!!

Future genealogists will have it easy Sue, we have done it all for them

Linell.

linell wrote:Future genealogists will have it easy Sue, we have done it all for them

Linell.

I hadn't thourght of that one!!!

Sue

We will have done it for them or it will be on a computer database!!
They will not have had the fun of going through parish registers trying to find the elusive ancestor and the feeling one gets when "eruka" found you.

maureen41 wrote:They will not have had the fun of going through parish registers trying to find the elusive ancestor and the feeling one gets when "eruka" found you.

Yeh, that is a good feeling

I have only just started genealogy in the last year , the census have been fantastic viewing and i am excited about the next one , and would love to see it , however i didnt know the 1931 and 1941 have been destroyed so to view the 1921 means i would have to wait 40 years to see the next ..... i say leave it 10 years

watters2831 wrote:I have only just started genealogy in the last year , the census have been fantastic viewing and i am excited about the next one , and would love to see it , however i didnt know the 1931 and 1941 have been destroyed so to view the 1921 means i would have to wait 40 years to see the next ..... i say leave it 10 years

I don't quite follow the logic of that. But anyway I don't think that the 1951 census would be of that much use to me, I know that part of my family history. And anyway by 2051 I'll be 80.

I'm all for releasing the 1921 census early, and for that matter the 1951 census early too.

If you actually think about the census information, a lot of it can be found by other means. BMD for the obvious purpose, Parish Records will give an idea as to religion.

It is interesting to see their occupation, literacy and whether they had any disabilities, and I can see the argument for protecting that information, but a lot of the people named on the 1921 census will be dead by the time it's released (even if it's released early).

Through my own experiences, the census returns have served more as a confirmation before sending off for certificates rather than leading me to someone else. Yes, I have been able to find relatives I hadn't known about as a result of the census, but in comparison with the amount of census returns I have viewed with the intent of confirmation it's a small percentage.

I am all for adhering to the original conditions that the people of 1921 agreed to.

It is morally wrong to renege on such a deal.

BMD records do not tell you if Grandad Smith is shacked up with a Miss Jones and not Grandma Smith.

They do not tell you the Great Uncle Fred was a guest of Her Royal Majesty.

They do not tell you that Cousin Bruce was unemployed and relying on his wife to feed the family.

Leave it alone till the agreed date.