I'm not sure: there's nothing in the Terms & Conditions to exclude non-UK residents but you must provide your address. I'd suggest you try it: the worst hat can haooen is hat your submisission id rejected. C. -----Original Message----- From: Diane Lea [mailto:dianelea@sympatico.ca] Sent: 23 January 2014 15:57 To: HughesCJ; cheshire@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CHS] 1921 Census Does this apply to foreigners as well, Christopher?? Diane ----- Original Message ----- From: "HughesCJ" <hughes.11@btinternet.com> To: "'HughesCJ'" <hughes.11@btinternet.com>; <cheshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [CHS] 1921 Census > Sorry! For Griens please read friends. > C. > > -----Original Message----- > From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of HughesCJ > Sent: 23 January 2014 15:00 > To: cheshire@rootsweb.com > Subject: [CHS] 1921 Census > > If this has been publicised on List previously, I apologise for having > missed it, but feel it is well worth mentioning whether for the first > time or not!!! > > There is a petition gathering signatures at present to seek early > release of the 1921 Census as follows: > > * Amend the 1920 Census Act to make the publication of the census data > exempt from the 100 year rule so that the data can be published now. > * It is already 90 years since that 1921 census took place. The 1931 > census data for England was destroyed in WW2 and no census took place > in 1941. > * Considering there is no other census available until the 1951 one, > th original release date of 2022 will be too late. > * Most people named in the 1921 census are no longer amongst us. > > The petition closes on 24th April 2014 and I hope Listers and their > friends and families will support it. If you agree please you could > all take time to sign up to it. > > Signing the petition is very simple just follow the link below and > fill in your details it only takes a minute. Your adult spouses Griens > and relatives are all eligible to sign too. > Please go to > http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49199 > <http://dada.fhscheshire.org.uk/dada/mail.cgi/r/FHSC1/589258009755/hug > hes.11 > /btinternet.com/> > and follow their instructions > > Christopher Hughes > > Rhos-on-Sea > > North Wales > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Wonderful, but if we don't try it won't happen anyway so let's get signing!!! C. -----Original Message----- From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of roy.stockdill@btinternet.com Sent: 23 January 2014 16:05 To: cheshire@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CHS] 1921 Census From: "HughesCJ" <hughes.11@btinternet.com> > If this has been publicised on List previously, I apologise for having > missed it, but feel it is well worth mentioning whether for the first > time or not!!! > > There is a petition gathering signatures at present to seek early > release of the 1921 Census as follows: > > * Amend the 1920 Census Act to make the publication of the census data > exempt from the 100 year rule so that the data can be published now. > * It is already 90 years since that 1921 census took place. The 1931 > census data for England was destroyed in WW2 and no census took place > in 1941. > * Considering there is no other census available until the 1951 one, > th original release date of 2022 will be too late. > * Most people named in the 1921 census are no longer amongst us. > > The petition closes on 24th April 2014 and I hope Listers and their > friends and families will support it. If you agree please you could > all take time to sign up to it. > > Signing the petition is very simple just follow the link below and > fill in your details it only takes a minute. Your adult spouses Griens > and relatives are all eligible to sign too. > Please go to > http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49199 > <http://dada.fhscheshire.org.uk/dada/mail.cgi/r/FHSC1/589258009755/hug > hes.11 > /btinternet.com/> > and follow their instructions > > Christopher Hughes> Believe me, I have no wish to be a wet blanket (!) but I am very pessimistic about the likelihood of this petition succeeding for the following reasons..... 1) In my humble opinion, the whole concept of online petitions was a virtual government con-trick set up by (I think) Tony Blair during his premiership to make people think they were being consulted, i.e. that democracy was being applied. My cynical feeling is that these online petitions are "noted" by politicians and bureaocrats and then quietly shelved. Unless someone knows otherwise, I can't name one that has actually succeeded. 2) The 1921 census was the first one that promised confidentiality for a specific period of 100 years. I believe I am correct in saying this - no previous censuses had this stipulation. Thus, legislation would have to be passed through parliament to change this and I suspect the government will argue that there simply isn't time amid all the other legislation they are no doubt proposing to inflict upon us! True, governments themselves have often moved the goalposts - but only when it suits them and not us. 3) It is probably not true to say that "most people in the 1921 census are no longer with us". Given that the population is ageing all the time, I well recall that when the 1911 census was released two years early my friends at Findmypast estimated that there were then somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 people aged 98 and over who were in it. One of these was my own mother-in-law who was on the census in Coventry as a baby of two months and who has only just passed away on January 2 this year three days short of her 103rd birthday. If the 1921 census is released early, I imagine there will be many thousands of people in their 90s who are on it and there may be protests. 4) Politicians and civil servants, in my experience, do NOT regard family historians as being very high in their list of priorities! They do not see the importance of our researches when set against all the other responsibilities they have to assess. Obviously, I would love this petition to succeed, but I'm not holding my breath! -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ Reach For The Stars blog: roystockdillgenealogy.com "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

From: "HughesCJ" <hughes.11@btinternet.com> > If this has been publicised on List previously, I apologise for having > missed it, but feel it is well worth mentioning whether for the first time > or not!!! > > There is a petition gathering signatures at present to seek early release of > the 1921 Census as follows: > > * Amend the 1920 Census Act to make the publication of the census data > exempt from the 100 year rule so that the data can be published now. > * It is already 90 years since that 1921 census took place. The 1931 > census data for England was destroyed in WW2 and no census took place in > 1941. > * Considering there is no other census available until the 1951 one, > th original release date of 2022 will be too late. > * Most people named in the 1921 census are no longer amongst us. > > The petition closes on 24th April 2014 and I hope Listers and their friends > and families will support it. If you agree please you could all take time to > sign up to it. > > Signing the petition is very simple just follow the link below and fill in > your details it only takes a minute. Your adult spouses Griens and relatives > are all eligible to sign too. > Please go to > http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49199 > <http://dada.fhscheshire.org.uk/dada/mail.cgi/r/FHSC1/589258009755/hughes.11 > /btinternet.com/> > and follow their instructions > > Christopher Hughes> Believe me, I have no wish to be a wet blanket (!) but I am very pessimistic about the likelihood of this petition succeeding for the following reasons..... 1) In my humble opinion, the whole concept of online petitions was a virtual government con-trick set up by (I think) Tony Blair during his premiership to make people think they were being consulted, i.e. that democracy was being applied. My cynical feeling is that these online petitions are "noted" by politicians and bureaocrats and then quietly shelved. Unless someone knows otherwise, I can't name one that has actually succeeded. 2) The 1921 census was the first one that promised confidentiality for a specific period of 100 years. I believe I am correct in saying this - no previous censuses had this stipulation. Thus, legislation would have to be passed through parliament to change this and I suspect the government will argue that there simply isn't time amid all the other legislation they are no doubt proposing to inflict upon us! True, governments themselves have often moved the goalposts - but only when it suits them and not us. 3) It is probably not true to say that "most people in the 1921 census are no longer with us". Given that the population is ageing all the time, I well recall that when the 1911 census was released two years early my friends at Findmypast estimated that there were then somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 people aged 98 and over who were in it. One of these was my own mother-in-law who was on the census in Coventry as a baby of two months and who has only just passed away on January 2 this year three days short of her 103rd birthday. If the 1921 census is released early, I imagine there will be many thousands of people in their 90s who are on it and there may be protests. 4) Politicians and civil servants, in my experience, do NOT regard family historians as being very high in their list of priorities! They do not see the importance of our researches when set against all the other responsibilities they have to assess. Obviously, I would love this petition to succeed, but I'm not holding my breath! -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ Reach For The Stars blog: roystockdillgenealogy.com "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

Sorry! For Griens please read friends. C. -----Original Message----- From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of HughesCJ Sent: 23 January 2014 15:00 To: cheshire@rootsweb.com Subject: [CHS] 1921 Census If this has been publicised on List previously, I apologise for having missed it, but feel it is well worth mentioning whether for the first time or not!!! There is a petition gathering signatures at present to seek early release of the 1921 Census as follows: * Amend the 1920 Census Act to make the publication of the census data exempt from the 100 year rule so that the data can be published now. * It is already 90 years since that 1921 census took place. The 1931 census data for England was destroyed in WW2 and no census took place in 1941. * Considering there is no other census available until the 1951 one, th original release date of 2022 will be too late. * Most people named in the 1921 census are no longer amongst us. The petition closes on 24th April 2014 and I hope Listers and their friends and families will support it. If you agree please you could all take time to sign up to it. Signing the petition is very simple just follow the link below and fill in your details it only takes a minute. Your adult spouses Griens and relatives are all eligible to sign too. Please go to http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49199 <http://dada.fhscheshire.org.uk/dada/mail.cgi/r/FHSC1/589258009755/hughes.11 /btinternet.com/> and follow their instructions Christopher Hughes Rhos-on-Sea North Wales ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

If this has been publicised on List previously, I apologise for having missed it, but feel it is well worth mentioning whether for the first time or not!!! There is a petition gathering signatures at present to seek early release of the 1921 Census as follows: * Amend the 1920 Census Act to make the publication of the census data exempt from the 100 year rule so that the data can be published now. * It is already 90 years since that 1921 census took place. The 1931 census data for England was destroyed in WW2 and no census took place in 1941. * Considering there is no other census available until the 1951 one, th original release date of 2022 will be too late. * Most people named in the 1921 census are no longer amongst us. The petition closes on 24th April 2014 and I hope Listers and their friends and families will support it. If you agree please you could all take time to sign up to it. Signing the petition is very simple just follow the link below and fill in your details it only takes a minute. Your adult spouses Griens and relatives are all eligible to sign too. Please go to http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49199 <http://dada.fhscheshire.org.uk/dada/mail.cgi/r/FHSC1/589258009755/hughes.11 /btinternet.com/> and follow their instructions Christopher Hughes Rhos-on-Sea North Wales

Not sure of the Cheshire coverage but these are to be found on Ancestry.co.uk Regards, Lyn England and Wales Quaker Births, Marriage and Death Registers 1578-1837

Thanks Elaine & Adrian for your suggestions; I hadn't appreciate how useful these extended baptism records were. Pity we don't have more of them! Regards Dick -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Bruce Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 5:32 PM To: 'Dick Coleman' Subject: RE: [CHS] PICKSTOCK Dick - as Elaine indicates, there'll be some extended format baptisms in that period to confirm that the Haddock children's maternal grandparents are Richard and Sarah Pickstock. The only Haddock / Pickstock marriage in Cheshire in FamilySearch is in August 1820, so there's not a lot of options to play with. As for which Richard and Sarah Pickstock, well, there are 2 Richard Pickstock & Sarah marriages in Cheshire in the FamilySearch prior to 1837, viz: 1735 and 1796. It is not credible that a daughter from a marriage nearly 90y ago should be having a child. Therefore, the only plausible Richard & Sarah marriage for the Haddocks is Richard Pickstock & Sarah Hornby. This does assume that everyone gets married and no-one comes into the area with the same name as a couple already there. If you want to go backwards again, Richard Pickstock's parents are Samuel Pickstock and Mary - this comes from his extended format burial in 1840 since he doesn't appear to be baptised. Or the record was lost. (Mary Read, m1756) Samuel's own baptism is also missing but again his extended format burial tells you his parents are Richard and Sarah Pickstock. Yes, that's the other Richard and Sarah Pickstock - here the only option is Richard P and Sarah Broom, m1735 at Witton. Thereafter it gets a bit foggy - I am still in the process of proving that Richard Pickstock of Witton is the same person as the Richard who was baptised just down the road at Davenham. If he is, then he has a number of wives and at least one extra-marital child! I've only sketched these things in because I'd be writing pages if I tried to write the proofs in detail - and the proof varies anyway depending on where you start... Adrian -----Original Message----- From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Elaine Hanson Sent: 18 January 2014 16:48 To: Dick Coleman; Cheshire List Subject: Re: [CHS] PICKSTOCK Dick, There's quite a few children baptised at Witton from 1821 onwards to a William & Sarah Haddock - see familysearch. If you think that these are your family then the baptisms fall within the period of the auxiliary registers, so you should be able to discover the names of the grandparents. If you can't get to see the film, purchasing a few credits on FindMyPast would give you the answer, or if you can wait I should be able to look for you next time I visit the Library. regards, Elaine. Subject: Re: [CHS] PICKSTOCK I too have a PICKSTOCK interest, my wife's ancestor, Sarah, of Witton, b. 1800. She became the wife of William HADDOCK, b. 1798, Barnton. There was a Witton baptism in 1800 for a Sally PICKSTOCK, which seems to match. Sally's parents were Richard & Sarah PICKSTOCK. Have any other PICKSTOCK followers any info regarding Richard & Sarah, and indeed anything to consolidate that their daughter Sally & my wife's ancestor Sarah are one & the same? Regards Dick

Does this apply to foreigners as well, Christopher?? Diane ----- Original Message ----- From: "HughesCJ" <hughes.11@btinternet.com> To: "'HughesCJ'" <hughes.11@btinternet.com>; <cheshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:49 AM Subject: Re: [CHS] 1921 Census > Sorry! For Griens please read friends. > C. > > -----Original Message----- > From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of HughesCJ > Sent: 23 January 2014 15:00 > To: cheshire@rootsweb.com > Subject: [CHS] 1921 Census > > If this has been publicised on List previously, I apologise for having > missed it, but feel it is well worth mentioning whether for the first time > or not!!! > > There is a petition gathering signatures at present to seek early release > of > the 1921 Census as follows: > > * Amend the 1920 Census Act to make the publication of the census data > exempt from the 100 year rule so that the data can be published now. > * It is already 90 years since that 1921 census took place. The 1931 > census data for England was destroyed in WW2 and no census took place in > 1941. > * Considering there is no other census available until the 1951 one, > th original release date of 2022 will be too late. > * Most people named in the 1921 census are no longer amongst us. > > The petition closes on 24th April 2014 and I hope Listers and their > friends > and families will support it. If you agree please you could all take time > to > sign up to it. > > Signing the petition is very simple just follow the link below and fill in > your details it only takes a minute. Your adult spouses Griens and > relatives > are all eligible to sign too. > Please go to > http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/49199 > <http://dada.fhscheshire.org.uk/dada/mail.cgi/r/FHSC1/589258009755/hughes.11 > /btinternet.com/> > and follow their instructions > > Christopher Hughes > > Rhos-on-Sea > > North Wales > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Thank you Lyn, These are on ancestry.com on this side of the pond as well. My Thomas has a marriage record to an Elizabeth, from a different source, but not in the Quaker records. That doesn't have her last name. I think I'll pick up that CD in case it has some further information. Cheers, Tony On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Mrs L. McCulloch < lyn.mcculloch@btinternet.com> wrote: > Not sure of the Cheshire coverage but these are to be found on > Ancestry.co.uk <http://ancestry.co.uk/> > > Regards, > > Lyn > > England and Wales Quaker Births, Marriage and Death Registers 1578-1837 > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

There is a copy of an admission register 1873-1906 lodged in Ellesmere Port library,Cheshire record office and the Boat Museum. It relates to Ellesmere Port National School, later Christ Church Primary. It is searchable by surname,fathers occupation and address. I also hold a copy if anyone needs a family lookup Gill Sent from my iPad On 22 Jan 2014, at 10:54, "Adrian Bruce" <abruce@madasafish.com> wrote: > <<snipped>> > Ancestry has added this set of records. > England, Select Cheshire, School Records, 1796-1950 > Not sure what is the significance of 'Select', they have a lot showing that > and added in the last day. > <<snipped>> > > These are part of the results of the co-operation between Ancestry and > FamilySearch. It's just a copy of the FS index. "Select" is presumably > Ancestry covering themselves by implying these are just "selected" records, > not necessarily all. Ancestry's info on the dataset says: > > "About England, Select Cheshire, School Records, 1796-1950 > "This collection includes school record entries from Cheshire, England. > "You can learn more about this collection at the FamilySearch website." > > Nothing will show on Ancestry that isn't on FS. There are advantages to > being able to search from Ancestry (or vice versa, when FS is able to search > Ancestry data) - if you're used to one search mechanism, then you can > continue to use it without moving. Also, I have just looked at one set of > results on one (other Cheshire) dataset and the Ancestry results are - with > the peculiar exception of the first 5 - in date order, whereas FS > programmers can't seem to do anything other than throw the stuff at the > screen in random order. I might, therefore, be able to tick off Cheshire > baptisms (say) for one family against my sources to ensure I've got them > all. > > NB - on the name and dataset that I chose, I got 317 answers on Ancestry, in > date order apart from the first 5, versus 366 on FS, in random order. I > suspect the difference is entirely accounted for by Ancestry's surname > selection on phonetic matching being tighter than FS's matching of surnames. > > Adrian B > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

was: gavinyates@xtra.co.nz now: lucend@xtra.co.nz

<<snipped>> Ancestry has added this set of records. England, Select Cheshire, School Records, 1796-1950 Not sure what is the significance of 'Select', they have a lot showing that and added in the last day. <<snipped>> These are part of the results of the co-operation between Ancestry and FamilySearch. It's just a copy of the FS index. "Select" is presumably Ancestry covering themselves by implying these are just "selected" records, not necessarily all. Ancestry's info on the dataset says: "About England, Select Cheshire, School Records, 1796-1950 "This collection includes school record entries from Cheshire, England. "You can learn more about this collection at the FamilySearch website." Nothing will show on Ancestry that isn't on FS. There are advantages to being able to search from Ancestry (or vice versa, when FS is able to search Ancestry data) - if you're used to one search mechanism, then you can continue to use it without moving. Also, I have just looked at one set of results on one (other Cheshire) dataset and the Ancestry results are - with the peculiar exception of the first 5 - in date order, whereas FS programmers can't seem to do anything other than throw the stuff at the screen in random order. I might, therefore, be able to tick off Cheshire baptisms (say) for one family against my sources to ensure I've got them all. NB - on the name and dataset that I chose, I got 317 answers on Ancestry, in date order apart from the first 5, versus 366 on FS, in random order. I suspect the difference is entirely accounted for by Ancestry's surname selection on phonetic matching being tighter than FS's matching of surnames. Adrian B

Ancestry has added this set of records. England, Select Cheshire, School Records, 1796-1950 Not sure what is the significance of 'Select', they have a lot showing that and added in the last day. When I put a random name in the Cheshire School Records, none show any dates except the first few which have years 0019, 0025, 0025 and 0089! Not sure what that is supposed to mean because they don't have any images. Martin Briscoe Fort William martin@mbriscoe.me.uk

Many thanks Margaret! The Dirks family is so illusive. They turned up on one Canadian census as "Dears" which surprised me. As an aside I live in Victoria BC and you are right. The Cariboo is so beautiful. Noreen On Jan 21, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Noreen Nash <nnash@shaw.ca> wrote: >> Recently Lyn posted information under the above header. I am not a member of Ancestry and wonder if someone could check on the ship Carpathia for me. In particular whether it sailed from Libau to Liverpool in July, leaving Liverpool for the USA the beginning of August 1904. I am trying to trace Edmund, Frederich, Paul, Maria and possibly Lydia Dirks/ Deirks who may have sailed on said ship. > Many thanks. > Noreen >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Image found and sent. Marg >From the Beautiful British Columbia Cariboo Region, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noreen Nash" <nnash@shaw.ca> To: <Cheshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [CHS] Ancestry.com Incoming to Britain Passenger Lists > Recently Lyn posted information under the above header. I am not a member > of Ancestry and wonder if someone could check on the ship Carpathia for > me. In particular whether it sailed from Libau to Liverpool in July, > leaving Liverpool for the USA the beginning of August 1904. I am trying to > trace Edmund, Frederich, Paul, Maria and possibly Lydia Dirks/ Deirks who > may have sailed on said ship. Many thanks. Noreen

> Recently Lyn posted information under the above header. I am not a member of Ancestry and wonder if someone could check on the ship Carpathia for me. In particular whether it sailed from Libau to Liverpool in July, leaving Liverpool for the USA the beginning of August 1904. I am trying to trace Edmund, Frederich, Paul, Maria and possibly Lydia Dirks/ Deirks who may have sailed on said ship. Many thanks. Noreen > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I'm doing some Allison/Ellison/Elliss(e)/Ellis research in Yorkshire records in the 1500s and 1600s. So I'm looking for a person, group or list who is/are skilled reader(s) of this Old Stuff. I'm having trouble with some of the Old English writing. Old German is my forte. I think I've figured out most of it, but need to find some people really skilled at reading this stuff so I don't write down "William" for "Wilton", or "Hellen" for "Willa", or some other crazy mistake. It' a real issue as I have one case where it looks like the records are written as "Wm" in some cases and "Willm" in others, or I'm just screwing up. I have a name I'm convinced is Hellen, but it's the craziest "H" I've ever seen like it's an Arabic character or something, and more. I know this is a bit off-topic, as it's Yorkshire related, but I thought this list is my best shot of the ones I subscribe to. So please respond off-list. Thanks, Brian

Listers, Don't know if many of you have looked at these. They are indexed giving a port of departure/destination etc. Keep in mind that the person you seek may not have left from the original departure place of the ship. They may have joined it at any of the intervening ports but this will not be reflected in the index. For example the "Mongolia" departed from Auckland, New Zealand in May 1910, calling at Sydney, Hobart, Melbourne, Adelaide, Colombo, Yokohama, Shanghai, Bombay and Suez before finally reaching London. The index will just give you Auckland, NZ. beside the passenger's name. That said, they are wonderful to browse and you may have to browse a lot before finding the entry you want. Regards, Lyn

Hope I'm not stealing anyone's thunder by noting that: "The loading of Cheadle St Mary (28) was completed ... bringing the number of parishes fully loaded to 28. ... "Cheadle (28) - (parish_codes CHDL, CHDX) - LOADED 17 January 2014" See http://cgi.csc.liv.ac.uk/~cprdb/ Huge thanks to the transcribers for their careful work. Adrian

Hello Barrie, Now Elaine has kindly provided me with some vital information re my KAY family. It doesn't look like there is any connection unfortunately. I have a John KAY born 1787 to James KAY a servant at Nether Knutsford and Sarah (described as being of Liverpool in baptism of grand-daughter Ann) married to Ann FORSTER born c. 1793 (parents William and Hannah of Weaverham) date and place unknown. John KAY's occupation was Rockgetter and the family lived at Wincham. John and Ann KAY had the following children: Sarah (1825), Martha (1827), Ann (1829), Mary (1832), Henry (1835) although due to the ages of the parents I am not discounting the possibility that there were other children born elsewhere or that either John or Ann or both were married previously. Ann KAY died in 1844 at Wincham and John possibly died in 1873. John KAY possibly had a sister Nancy born in 1786 and a James KAY described as a weaver and his wife Mary had a daughter at Nether Knutsford in 1790. I am wondering if this was a second marriage for James as a James KAY and Mary had a son William baptised at Witton cum Twambrooks in 1816. KAY seems to be a difficult name to research and I have found it transcribed variously as KAYE, KEY, HAY, RAY and ROY and not all of these variations come up in a standard search. I found my Great, Great Grandmother Mary KAY in the 1851 census living in Manchester by searching for her first name, age and place of birth. I am sorry that I cannot be of further help. Regards, Christine -----Original Message----- From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Barrie Sharples Sent: Sunday, 19 January 2014 10:24 a.m. To: cheshire@rootsweb.com Subject: [CHS] Auxiliary Register of Baptisms - KAY Christine, Spotted your surname interest, I have struggled for years to track my KAY ancestors, I obtained the wedding cert for my x2 Gt Grandfather Richard KAY, b. abt 1811, who married Jane KENDAL in 1842, Preston, LAN. his father was also a Richard KAY. Census of 1841,51,61 & 71 reveal some variety of birth date but all show his b. place as Crowton. (Jane's - Huddersfield) 1851 states Acton, which I think is in the same area as Crowton? Initially he worked for a railway company [Preston - Wigan Railway?] in Farrington, Euxton, then moved to Penwortham all in Lancashire, where he died in 1876. This Richard Kay, b. abt 1811 had a sibling, Thomas b. abt 1806, also Crowton, who seems to have remained unmarried, and like his brother was to die in Penwortham, three years earlier. I found in the R.O. Tithe Maps a record that a Richard Kay was residing at Marshflatt Cottage, junction of Marsh Lane & Bent Lane, Crowton. I did have a suggestion (from someone named Judy - who's details were sadly lost when my previous computer 'died') that this Richard's spouse may have been a Mary Kearsley daur of Richard Kearsley & Eliz. I wonder if you can see any link to your KAY's, in the above. Regards Barrie Kay Sharples North Yorkshire