Hi Marie It's really easy. You need to be on a 'View Record' page, then tap on 'Add Alternative Information' (on the left hand menu). Then a box pops up and you choose either name etc from the drop down menu under 'Provide alternate for'. This generates another list of 'Reasons' for you to choose from. Next you edit the details shown and tap 'Submit Alternative'. You can submit an explanation too if you like. Hope this helps, Carole > Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 16:53:00 +0000 > To: m_shaw@telusplanet.net; cheshire@rootsweb.com > From: lyn.mcculloch@btinternet.com > Subject: Re: [CHS] Familysearch should emulate Ancestry.com > > Dear Marie, > It's usually census entries that I have to correct. > You click on index and then whenb it comes up on the word that is wrong. > A pencil appears and you click on it a second time. > You change the appropriate word and it will ask for a reason > such as mis-transcription or wrong in original. > The you click on Save and your correction appears. > It even asks you if you want the name applied to all members > of the household, if it's a surname you are correcting. > You need to check it's only members of the family and > not servants that get changed, of course. > If there is something I can't find a way to correct I leave a comment. > Regards, > Lyn > > > > At 19:59 11/01/2014, you wrote: > > >I've found some errors on Ancestry, but have not yet determined how > >to submit a correction. > > > >Marie > >in Alberta, Canada > > > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Mrs L. McCulloch" > ><lyn.mcculloch@btinternet.com> > >To: <cheshire@rootsweb.com> > >Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:13 AM > >Subject: [CHS] Familysearch should emulate Ancestry.com > > > > > >>Listers, I. too find it frustrating when there seems to be no easy > >>way to correct entries on Familysearch. > >>Ancestry.com may suffer from mis-transcriptions but is very open to > >>suggested corrections. > >>They even come back later to say thank you and show your correction > >>in context. This is clearly the way to go > >>with the wealth of knowledge that exists in the Family History > >>Fraternity. How to achieve this is another > >>thing altogether! > >>Regards, > >>Lyn > >>PS Another area I have found problematical is the Army Service > >>Records at the NA. The number of pages > >> in each will is variable and sometimes other wills are not indexed > >>but appear with the one before. It's always > >> worth a good hunt round to check if this is the case. > >> > >> > >>------------------------------- > >>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 > > > > > > > >----- > >No virus found in this message. > >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > >Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6994 - Release Date: 01/11/14 > > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Hello Marilyn Cheshire BMD has a marriage Emma Molyneux/Joseph Stockton at Alford St John in 1866. Is this the Emma you are interested in? A little more information would be helpful, where born, where she lived & died etc. Bob On 12 January 2014 16:32, Marilyn Dion <marilyn.dion@diondesktop.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I am trying to learn more about Emma Molyneux Stockton 1847-1916, and her > father, whom I believe to be Richard Molyneux, born 1819. Any guidance > would be appreciated. > > Thank you, > > Marilyn > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Dear Marie, It's usually census entries that I have to correct. You click on index and then whenb it comes up on the word that is wrong. A pencil appears and you click on it a second time. You change the appropriate word and it will ask for a reason such as mis-transcription or wrong in original. The you click on Save and your correction appears. It even asks you if you want the name applied to all members of the household, if it's a surname you are correcting. You need to check it's only members of the family and not servants that get changed, of course. If there is something I can't find a way to correct I leave a comment. Regards, Lyn At 19:59 11/01/2014, you wrote: >I've found some errors on Ancestry, but have not yet determined how >to submit a correction. > >Marie >in Alberta, Canada > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Mrs L. McCulloch" ><lyn.mcculloch@btinternet.com> >To: <cheshire@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:13 AM >Subject: [CHS] Familysearch should emulate Ancestry.com > > >>Listers, I. too find it frustrating when there seems to be no easy >>way to correct entries on Familysearch. >>Ancestry.com may suffer from mis-transcriptions but is very open to >>suggested corrections. >>They even come back later to say thank you and show your correction >>in context. This is clearly the way to go >>with the wealth of knowledge that exists in the Family History >>Fraternity. How to achieve this is another >>thing altogether! >>Regards, >>Lyn >>PS Another area I have found problematical is the Army Service >>Records at the NA. The number of pages >> in each will is variable and sometimes other wills are not indexed >>but appear with the one before. It's always >> worth a good hunt round to check if this is the case. >> >> >>------------------------------- >>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 > > > >----- >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3658/6994 - Release Date: 01/11/14

Hello, I am trying to learn more about Emma Molyneux Stockton 1847-1916, and her father, whom I believe to be Richard Molyneux, born 1819. Any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you, Marilyn

Thank you to Andy, Ruth, Graham and Robert for their replies. It does look as if they went through the ritual of making the allegations but not the bond or marriage. I will look at the other possibilities. Best wishes, J Sent from my iPad > On 11 Jan 2014, at 18:46, Graham Pointon <graham_pointon@lineone.net> wrote: > > Andy - > > Except that if, for some reason, and however unlikely, the Local > Register Office is also lacking the entry, then none of the later > generations of sources can be expected to include it. > > In that case, only the original Registrar, who failed to make the entry, > can be blamed. > > Graham > > >> On 11/01/2014 02:30, Andy wrote: >> Hi Ruth >> >> I think you misunderstood what Bob was saying. >> >> FreeBMD, Ancestry, FMP and other commercial sites are all sourced from the >> GRO Indexes. CheshireBMD is not. It is sourced from the Indexes of the >> Local Register Offices. These indexes are compiled from the Original >> Registers still held at the various Local Register Offices whereas the GRO >> Indexes are compiled from the copies that each office forwards to the GRO >> quarterly. In a perfect world the GRO registers would be identical to the >> Local Office Registers and both would have been transcribed exactly the same >> but unfortunately that isn't the case and the 2 sets of Indexes will have >> differences. >> >> Andy >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ruth >> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 1:02 PM >> To: Robert Kirk >> Cc: cheshire@rootsweb.com >> Subject: Re: [CHS] Marriage Allegation on FamilySearch but no marriage found >> >> Bob - you miss my point. If the entry is missing from the original indices, >> then it will also be missing from the other compilations. I do not >> denigrate the work of those involved with Cheshire BMDs or any other >> source, but their accuracy and completeness depends on the quality of their >> source material. >> >> Ruth >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 10 Jan 2014, at 20:50, Robert Kirk <bob.kirk@me.com> wrote: >>> >>> Ruth >>>> Don't forget that FreeBMD and Cheshire BMD, as well as the FreeBMD >>>> transcript on Ancestry, are all from the same source, so if the original >>>> index to marriages at the GRO is incorrect, so will the others be. >>> You are quite wrong in the above statement unless you mean: 'There was a >>> Birth, There was a Marriage, There was a Death'. >>> To include CheshireBMD in the statement shows a complete lack of knowledge >>> as to the process involved in bringing this wonderful resource to the >>> internet. CheshireBMD entries are transcribed from the indexes held by >>> the individual Register Offices and then these transcriptions are further >>> checked against the ORIGINAL reigisters held by the that Register Office >>> with any errors or omissions being corrected/inserted. Throughout this >>> process several checks are made to ensure that you have the most accurate >>> resource available. >>> >>> Several counties are now using the CheshireBMD software and these can be >>> seen at http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/. >>> >>> Hope you find this useful >>> >>> Have Fun & Look Wide >>> >>> Bob Kirk >>> Late of Dukinfield >>> Cheshire >>> >>> www.Kirksoft.me.uk >>> http://www.cheshirebmd.org.uk >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 10 Jan 2014, at 13:49, Acorn Cottage <orange.wasps@live.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> The marriage allegation will simply an oath that there was no hindrance >>>> to >>>> the parties marrying. It did not necessarily mean that they did marry, >>>> although it is unusual to go through the process of obtaining a licence >>>> (which was the purpose of the Bond and Allegation) and then not follow >>>> through. >>>> >>>> Don't forget that FreeBMD and Cheshire BMD, as well as the FreeBMD >>>> transcript on Ancestry, are all from the same source, so if the original >>>> index to marriages at the GRO is incorrect, so will the others be. The >>>> allegation usually indicates where the proposed marriage will take >>>> place - I >>>> suggest you check the register, if it is a church, just to make sure. >>>> >>>> Ruth in Hampshire >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com >>>>> [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Julian Ravenscroft >>>>> Sent: 10 January 2014 13:07 >>>>> To: cheshire@rootsweb.com >>>>> Subject: [CHS] Marriage Allegation on FamilySearch but no >>>>> marriage found >>>>> >>>>> Hello All and Happy New Year, >>>>> >>>>> I was searching for a marriage in Cheshire between James >>>>> PENDLEBURY and his wife Ann (no surname known prior to the >>>>> search). I found the allegation with Ann DAVENPORT on family >>>>> search but no marriage in 1861. Other researchers have James >>>>> marrying in Rochdale,Lancashire to an Ann TUDOR and the names >>>>> of the children include Tudor as a middle name. >>>>> >>>>> No marriage for James and Ann DAVENPORT could be found in >>>>> FreeBMD, Ancestry or CheshireBMD websites and I wondered if >>>>> the marriage had just been missed from transcriptions. No >>>>> church name is given by family search. >>>>> >>>>> Any suggestions welcome >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> J >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------- >>>>> 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 >>> >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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 >> > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Hi Ruth I think you misunderstood what Bob was saying. FreeBMD, Ancestry, FMP and other commercial sites are all sourced from the GRO Indexes. CheshireBMD is not. It is sourced from the Indexes of the Local Register Offices. These indexes are compiled from the Original Registers still held at the various Local Register Offices whereas the GRO Indexes are compiled from the copies that each office forwards to the GRO quarterly. In a perfect world the GRO registers would be identical to the Local Office Registers and both would have been transcribed exactly the same but unfortunately that isn't the case and the 2 sets of Indexes will have differences. Andy -----Original Message----- From: Ruth Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 1:02 PM To: Robert Kirk Cc: cheshire@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CHS] Marriage Allegation on FamilySearch but no marriage found Bob - you miss my point. If the entry is missing from the original indices, then it will also be missing from the other compilations. I do not denigrate the work of those involved with Cheshire BMDs or any other source, but their accuracy and completeness depends on the quality of their source material. Ruth Sent from my iPhone > On 10 Jan 2014, at 20:50, Robert Kirk <bob.kirk@me.com> wrote: > > Ruth >> Don't forget that FreeBMD and Cheshire BMD, as well as the FreeBMD >> transcript on Ancestry, are all from the same source, so if the original >> index to marriages at the GRO is incorrect, so will the others be. > > You are quite wrong in the above statement unless you mean: 'There was a > Birth, There was a Marriage, There was a Death'. > To include CheshireBMD in the statement shows a complete lack of knowledge > as to the process involved in bringing this wonderful resource to the > internet. CheshireBMD entries are transcribed from the indexes held by > the individual Register Offices and then these transcriptions are further > checked against the ORIGINAL reigisters held by the that Register Office > with any errors or omissions being corrected/inserted. Throughout this > process several checks are made to ensure that you have the most accurate > resource available. > > Several counties are now using the CheshireBMD software and these can be > seen at http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/. > > Hope you find this useful > > Have Fun & Look Wide > > Bob Kirk > Late of Dukinfield > Cheshire > > www.Kirksoft.me.uk > http://www.cheshirebmd.org.uk > > > >> On 10 Jan 2014, at 13:49, Acorn Cottage <orange.wasps@live.co.uk> wrote: >> >> The marriage allegation will simply an oath that there was no hindrance >> to >> the parties marrying. It did not necessarily mean that they did marry, >> although it is unusual to go through the process of obtaining a licence >> (which was the purpose of the Bond and Allegation) and then not follow >> through. >> >> Don't forget that FreeBMD and Cheshire BMD, as well as the FreeBMD >> transcript on Ancestry, are all from the same source, so if the original >> index to marriages at the GRO is incorrect, so will the others be. The >> allegation usually indicates where the proposed marriage will take >> place - I >> suggest you check the register, if it is a church, just to make sure. >> >> Ruth in Hampshire >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com >>> [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Julian Ravenscroft >>> Sent: 10 January 2014 13:07 >>> To: cheshire@rootsweb.com >>> Subject: [CHS] Marriage Allegation on FamilySearch but no >>> marriage found >>> >>> Hello All and Happy New Year, >>> >>> I was searching for a marriage in Cheshire between James >>> PENDLEBURY and his wife Ann (no surname known prior to the >>> search). I found the allegation with Ann DAVENPORT on family >>> search but no marriage in 1861. Other researchers have James >>> marrying in Rochdale,Lancashire to an Ann TUDOR and the names >>> of the children include Tudor as a middle name. >>> >>> No marriage for James and Ann DAVENPORT could be found in >>> FreeBMD, Ancestry or CheshireBMD websites and I wondered if >>> the marriage had just been missed from transcriptions. No >>> church name is given by family search. >>> >>> Any suggestions welcome >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> J >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 > > ------------------------------- 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

Hello all, I need a little help, if that's possible. Ann Brooks b. 1858 in Tetton, Middlewich, Cheshire. She is the daughter of Richard Brooks, Boatman. Her mother is Mary Martha Brooks. In 1876 Ann gave birth to Albert Leonard Brooks at Butt Lane, Talke o’the Hill, Staffordhire – no father’s name on the birth certificate. Baby Albert is brought up by Ann’s elder brother John Brooks and his wife Mercy. I have never found a death for Ann and never found her in subsequent censuses. I have recently found a marriage for William Stevenson (21) to an Ann Brookes (22) on 15 April 1879 – the Bride’s father’s name on the marriage certificate is Richard Brookes, Boatman. I would happily take this person as “my” Ann but I have a query - Ann’s father Richard Brooks died in 1867 and is not listed as “deceased” on the marriage certificate; and Interestingly, William and Ann’s children’s names are Elizabeth, Martha Mary, Joseph Brooks Stevenson, Louise, Arthur Leonard : Mary Martha (Ann’s mother’s name), Joseph Brooks (Ann’s brother’s name), Arthur Leonard (possibly part of her 1st son’s name?) This lady was my brick wall from when I first started my family history and Albert Leonard’s birth certificate the first one I sent for and now I feel so close to finally sorting out what happened to her. Would be grateful for opinions on whether I am right or what else I should do. Thanks in anticipation of any input ! Jackie Jones

I've found some errors on Ancestry, but have not yet determined how to submit a correction. Marie in Alberta, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mrs L. McCulloch" <lyn.mcculloch@btinternet.com> To: <cheshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 5:13 AM Subject: [CHS] Familysearch should emulate Ancestry.com > Listers, I. too find it frustrating when there seems to be no easy > way to correct entries on Familysearch. > Ancestry.com may suffer from mis-transcriptions but is very open to > suggested corrections. > They even come back later to say thank you and show your correction > in context. This is clearly the way to go > with the wealth of knowledge that exists in the Family History > Fraternity. How to achieve this is another > thing altogether! > Regards, > Lyn > PS Another area I have found problematical is the Army Service > Records at the NA. The number of pages > in each will is variable and sometimes other wills are not indexed > but appear with the one before. It's always > worth a good hunt round to check if this is the case. > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Listers, I. too find it frustrating when there seems to be no easy way to correct entries on Familysearch. Ancestry.com may suffer from mis-transcriptions but is very open to suggested corrections. They even come back later to say thank you and show your correction in context. This is clearly the way to go with the wealth of knowledge that exists in the Family History Fraternity. How to achieve this is another thing altogether! Regards, Lyn PS Another area I have found problematical is the Army Service Records at the NA. The number of pages in each will is variable and sometimes other wills are not indexed but appear with the one before. It's always worth a good hunt round to check if this is the case.

While working on 1737 marriage bonds issued in the old Lichfield diocese, I came across this one for two Cheshire folk to marry in Staffordshire. Issued 17 Aug 1737 Thomas Astle of Astbury CHS, writing master, to marry Martha Warburton, of Prestbury CHS, a widow. To marry at Leek or Horton or Meerbrook. It is not uncommon for the bonds and allegations to give more than one possible place of marriage - they don't like to help shorten our searches. Hope this helps somebody. Jacqui

Andy - Except that if, for some reason, and however unlikely, the Local Register Office is also lacking the entry, then none of the later generations of sources can be expected to include it. In that case, only the original Registrar, who failed to make the entry, can be blamed. Graham On 11/01/2014 02:30, Andy wrote: > Hi Ruth > > I think you misunderstood what Bob was saying. > > FreeBMD, Ancestry, FMP and other commercial sites are all sourced from the > GRO Indexes. CheshireBMD is not. It is sourced from the Indexes of the > Local Register Offices. These indexes are compiled from the Original > Registers still held at the various Local Register Offices whereas the GRO > Indexes are compiled from the copies that each office forwards to the GRO > quarterly. In a perfect world the GRO registers would be identical to the > Local Office Registers and both would have been transcribed exactly the same > but unfortunately that isn't the case and the 2 sets of Indexes will have > differences. > > Andy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ruth > Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 1:02 PM > To: Robert Kirk > Cc: cheshire@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [CHS] Marriage Allegation on FamilySearch but no marriage found > > Bob - you miss my point. If the entry is missing from the original indices, > then it will also be missing from the other compilations. I do not > denigrate the work of those involved with Cheshire BMDs or any other > source, but their accuracy and completeness depends on the quality of their > source material. > > Ruth > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 10 Jan 2014, at 20:50, Robert Kirk <bob.kirk@me.com> wrote: >> >> Ruth >>> Don't forget that FreeBMD and Cheshire BMD, as well as the FreeBMD >>> transcript on Ancestry, are all from the same source, so if the original >>> index to marriages at the GRO is incorrect, so will the others be. >> You are quite wrong in the above statement unless you mean: 'There was a >> Birth, There was a Marriage, There was a Death'. >> To include CheshireBMD in the statement shows a complete lack of knowledge >> as to the process involved in bringing this wonderful resource to the >> internet. CheshireBMD entries are transcribed from the indexes held by >> the individual Register Offices and then these transcriptions are further >> checked against the ORIGINAL reigisters held by the that Register Office >> with any errors or omissions being corrected/inserted. Throughout this >> process several checks are made to ensure that you have the most accurate >> resource available. >> >> Several counties are now using the CheshireBMD software and these can be >> seen at http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/. >> >> Hope you find this useful >> >> Have Fun & Look Wide >> >> Bob Kirk >> Late of Dukinfield >> Cheshire >> >> www.Kirksoft.me.uk >> http://www.cheshirebmd.org.uk >> >> >> >>> On 10 Jan 2014, at 13:49, Acorn Cottage <orange.wasps@live.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> The marriage allegation will simply an oath that there was no hindrance >>> to >>> the parties marrying. It did not necessarily mean that they did marry, >>> although it is unusual to go through the process of obtaining a licence >>> (which was the purpose of the Bond and Allegation) and then not follow >>> through. >>> >>> Don't forget that FreeBMD and Cheshire BMD, as well as the FreeBMD >>> transcript on Ancestry, are all from the same source, so if the original >>> index to marriages at the GRO is incorrect, so will the others be. The >>> allegation usually indicates where the proposed marriage will take >>> place - I >>> suggest you check the register, if it is a church, just to make sure. >>> >>> Ruth in Hampshire >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com >>>> [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Julian Ravenscroft >>>> Sent: 10 January 2014 13:07 >>>> To: cheshire@rootsweb.com >>>> Subject: [CHS] Marriage Allegation on FamilySearch but no >>>> marriage found >>>> >>>> Hello All and Happy New Year, >>>> >>>> I was searching for a marriage in Cheshire between James >>>> PENDLEBURY and his wife Ann (no surname known prior to the >>>> search). I found the allegation with Ann DAVENPORT on family >>>> search but no marriage in 1861. Other researchers have James >>>> marrying in Rochdale,Lancashire to an Ann TUDOR and the names >>>> of the children include Tudor as a middle name. >>>> >>>> No marriage for James and Ann DAVENPORT could be found in >>>> FreeBMD, Ancestry or CheshireBMD websites and I wondered if >>>> the marriage had just been missed from transcriptions. No >>>> church name is given by family search. >>>> >>>> Any suggestions welcome >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> J >>>> >>>> ------------------------------- >>>> 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 >> > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

I've written to Peter Calver about this, but I didn't think his reply was helpful enough to report here (although he was not UNhelpful). If listers would like me to copy it, then I am happy to, but I forwarded the problem with no identification of the original enquirer. Graham On 10/01/2014 11:30, Paul Bennett wrote: > Have you tried going via a third party re Peter Calver of Lost Cousins he must have some kind of contact with the powers that be there. > > Paul > > Sent from my iPad > >> On 10 Jan 2014, at 11:23, "Nuala" <nualacockburn@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 10/01/2014 09:24, Ruth J wrote: >>> Martin, thank you for posting your finding. >>> >>> I regret to say that I've still had no answer from Findmypast in spite of >>> sending a follow-up letter citing more hidden wills that I found. This was >>> a letter, not an error correction. >>> I would hope that the silence is because FMP is still considering ways of >>> righting the situation and not just ignoring my complaints. We have neither >>> a way of knowing how their complaints system works nor the person/office >>> designated to deal with things like this to whom we could address our >>> concerns directly. However, we do know that using the 'error correction' >>> method doesn't elicit a response. Assuming that the 'error correction people' >>> are the front row in a hierarchy of transcribers, palaeographers and >>> historians, if we draw FMP's attention to the will issue by letter each time >>> we come across a Hidden Will then, just maybe, attention will be given at >>> some point. >>> >>> It's very unbusinesslike of FMP to ignore letters of complaint. But hope >>> springs eternal. >>> Ruth >> Ruth, >> >> You posted the very reasonable reply you received from FMP on 30th >> December. What is the problem with their reply? >> >> Nuala >> >> ****************************** >> ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED MATERIALS. >> ****************************** >> PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the link. It's usually from an infected source! >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > ****************************** > ATTENTION TO ALL:- When replying please remove the details that do not apply to your mail and change the SUBJECT LINE for best useage of ARCHIVED MATERIALS. > ****************************** > PLEASE keep your Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware software up to date. BEWARE of messages making it onto the List with a single URL. NEVER follow the link. It's usually from an infected source! > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to STAFFORDSHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

Bob - you miss my point. If the entry is missing from the original indices, then it will also be missing from the other compilations. I do not denigrate the work of those involved with Cheshire BMDs or any other source, but their accuracy and completeness depends on the quality of their source material. Ruth Sent from my iPhone > On 10 Jan 2014, at 20:50, Robert Kirk <bob.kirk@me.com> wrote: > > Ruth >> Don't forget that FreeBMD and Cheshire BMD, as well as the FreeBMD >> transcript on Ancestry, are all from the same source, so if the original >> index to marriages at the GRO is incorrect, so will the others be. > > You are quite wrong in the above statement unless you mean: 'There was a Birth, There was a Marriage, There was a Death'. > To include CheshireBMD in the statement shows a complete lack of knowledge as to the process involved in bringing this wonderful resource to the internet. CheshireBMD entries are transcribed from the indexes held by the individual Register Offices and then these transcriptions are further checked against the ORIGINAL reigisters held by the that Register Office with any errors or omissions being corrected/inserted. Throughout this process several checks are made to ensure that you have the most accurate resource available. > > Several counties are now using the CheshireBMD software and these can be seen at http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/. > > Hope you find this useful > > Have Fun & Look Wide > > Bob Kirk > Late of Dukinfield > Cheshire > > www.Kirksoft.me.uk > http://www.cheshirebmd.org.uk > > > >> On 10 Jan 2014, at 13:49, Acorn Cottage <orange.wasps@live.co.uk> wrote: >> >> The marriage allegation will simply an oath that there was no hindrance to >> the parties marrying. It did not necessarily mean that they did marry, >> although it is unusual to go through the process of obtaining a licence >> (which was the purpose of the Bond and Allegation) and then not follow >> through. >> >> Don't forget that FreeBMD and Cheshire BMD, as well as the FreeBMD >> transcript on Ancestry, are all from the same source, so if the original >> index to marriages at the GRO is incorrect, so will the others be. The >> allegation usually indicates where the proposed marriage will take place - I >> suggest you check the register, if it is a church, just to make sure. >> >> Ruth in Hampshire >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com >>> [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Julian Ravenscroft >>> Sent: 10 January 2014 13:07 >>> To: cheshire@rootsweb.com >>> Subject: [CHS] Marriage Allegation on FamilySearch but no >>> marriage found >>> >>> Hello All and Happy New Year, >>> >>> I was searching for a marriage in Cheshire between James >>> PENDLEBURY and his wife Ann (no surname known prior to the >>> search). I found the allegation with Ann DAVENPORT on family >>> search but no marriage in 1861. Other researchers have James >>> marrying in Rochdale,Lancashire to an Ann TUDOR and the names >>> of the children include Tudor as a middle name. >>> >>> No marriage for James and Ann DAVENPORT could be found in >>> FreeBMD, Ancestry or CheshireBMD websites and I wondered if >>> the marriage had just been missed from transcriptions. No >>> church name is given by family search. >>> >>> Any suggestions welcome >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> J >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> 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 > >

<<snipped>> I was searching for a marriage in Cheshire between James PENDLEBURY and his wife Ann (no surname known prior to the search). I found the allegation with Ann DAVENPORT on family search but no marriage in 1861. ... No marriage for James and Ann DAVENPORT could be found in FreeBMD, Ancestry or CheshireBMD <<snipped>> Hm. I can't see what's going on here. For what it's worth, the entry that's been indexed is not a marriage allegation (bonds having died out by this time) but simply an entry in the "Act" book that lists applications for marriage licences. James Pendlebury is a farmer of the parish of Ashton (which Ashton??) and Ann Davenport is of the parish of Billinge. It looks like the intended church for the marriage is in the parish chapelry of Billinge, with the person of Howard St. George either officiating or issuing the licence. Howard St G is in Lancashire OPC as vicar at St Aidan, Billinge, ***Lancashire*** at this time. There is, however, no sign on http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Billinge/staidan/index.html of such a marriage. This suggests two possibilities: 1. The marriage never took place; 2. James P wasn't the groom but the applicant for the licence - this did happen to one of my female ancestors - they are indexed as marrying X, but the marriage bond shows X was the applicant but not (unusually?) the groom. Conversely, I can't find the Ann Davenport marriage either, suggesting option 1 is more likely. Adrian B

<<snipped>> Missing records/images for Cheshire are not necessarily the fault of FMP. As they state clearly, their records for Cheshire are mostly taken from LDS films and transcripts, not those held at Cheshire Record Office - hence there may well be some omissions due to that particular record not being transcribed or filmed by the LDS. <<snipped>> While I agree hugely that we should be grateful for the Cheshire Collection, we should not ignore the issues. I would gladly complain at organisation X if I knew *which* organisation has the *responsibility* for ensuring that the Cheshire Collection does what it "says on the tin". Right now, we don't know who has that responsibility. In the latest instance, I know that that the missing images were filmed by the LDS - I've seen at least one of them. I can speculate about the reason that the data was lost, using my experience in IT, but that's hardly helpful. I can, however, say that the measure of an organisation is not that it doesn't make mistakes, but in how it deals with those (inevitable) issues. And right now, we don't even know if FMP understand that there are issues. Put it another way - I am intensely relaxed about there being issues in the Cheshire Collection - so long as I know that something is being done about them. <<snipped>>so it's very annoying when the record you get excited about turns out to be the one that's missing, but ... <<snipped>> Except that in the case of the missing marriage licence bonds or allegations, I had no reason to assume that the documents had survived, so no reason to ask the CRO or to take the train up there. Ditto the missing probate stuff. We have to alert people to the possibilities that stuff is missing rather than non-existent. Adrian B

Ruth > Don't forget that FreeBMD and Cheshire BMD, as well as the FreeBMD > transcript on Ancestry, are all from the same source, so if the original > index to marriages at the GRO is incorrect, so will the others be. You are quite wrong in the above statement unless you mean: 'There was a Birth, There was a Marriage, There was a Death'. To include CheshireBMD in the statement shows a complete lack of knowledge as to the process involved in bringing this wonderful resource to the internet. CheshireBMD entries are transcribed from the indexes held by the individual Register Offices and then these transcriptions are further checked against the ORIGINAL reigisters held by the that Register Office with any errors or omissions being corrected/inserted. Throughout this process several checks are made to ensure that you have the most accurate resource available. Several counties are now using the CheshireBMD software and these can be seen at http://www.ukbmd.org.uk/. Hope you find this useful Have Fun & Look Wide Bob Kirk Late of Dukinfield Cheshire www.Kirksoft.me.uk http://www.cheshirebmd.org.uk On 10 Jan 2014, at 13:49, Acorn Cottage <orange.wasps@live.co.uk> wrote: > The marriage allegation will simply an oath that there was no hindrance to > the parties marrying. It did not necessarily mean that they did marry, > although it is unusual to go through the process of obtaining a licence > (which was the purpose of the Bond and Allegation) and then not follow > through. > > Don't forget that FreeBMD and Cheshire BMD, as well as the FreeBMD > transcript on Ancestry, are all from the same source, so if the original > index to marriages at the GRO is incorrect, so will the others be. The > allegation usually indicates where the proposed marriage will take place - I > suggest you check the register, if it is a church, just to make sure. > > Ruth in Hampshire > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com >> [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Julian Ravenscroft >> Sent: 10 January 2014 13:07 >> To: cheshire@rootsweb.com >> Subject: [CHS] Marriage Allegation on FamilySearch but no >> marriage found >> >> Hello All and Happy New Year, >> >> I was searching for a marriage in Cheshire between James >> PENDLEBURY and his wife Ann (no surname known prior to the >> search). I found the allegation with Ann DAVENPORT on family >> search but no marriage in 1861. Other researchers have James >> marrying in Rochdale,Lancashire to an Ann TUDOR and the names >> of the children include Tudor as a middle name. >> >> No marriage for James and Ann DAVENPORT could be found in >> FreeBMD, Ancestry or CheshireBMD websites and I wondered if >> the marriage had just been missed from transcriptions. No >> church name is given by family search. >> >> Any suggestions welcome >> >> Best wishes, >> J >> >> ------------------------------- >> 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

+ I second Diane's comments re Lesley's mail. Lesley makes a lot of really good points that possibly folk need reminding of. We are all guilty at times of taking for granted how relatively easy it is these days, by comparison, to research our families. I know most of my research these days is done from home on my computer. For which I am really grateful as I have disability isues which makes my getting out and about to libraries, record offices, etc., difficult. I just hope in standing up for FMP this doesn't start a deluge of compalints against the LDS. Please let us not forget that the generosity of the LDS is mostly how the family history research mostly began. I hope that everyone has a Great New Year and enjoys their family history as much s they are able. Val On 10 January 2014 16:16, dianelea <dianelea@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Well said, Lesley! Happy New Year to you and all Listers! > > > > > Sent from Samsung tabletLesley Baxendale <tree.dovercourt17@googlemail.com> wrote:Grumble time again, > > I know people are just trying to be helpful, and I have no wish to > offend anyone, nor am I singling out anyone in particular, but would you > please stop grumbling about the inadequacies of FMP. > > Missing records/images for Cheshire are not necessarily the fault of > FMP. As they state clearly, their records for Cheshire are mostly taken > from LDS films and transcripts, not those held at Cheshire Record Office > - hence there may well be some omissions due to that particular record > not being transcribed or filmed by the LDS. > > In addition, there has been much more work done on the original records > since the LDS work was carried out & that again could well affect what's > available on the FMP site. > > I agree, that they should make an effort to correct what they can and > give proper responses to queries and observations & that certainly > doesn't always happen. > > Don't forget, that it's not that long ago when researching your family > history involved long, arduous and often costly hours spent in record > offices peering into the usually ancient fiche & film readers. For many > of us, that just wasn't an option, so we were well and truly stuck. We > should try and focus on all the good stuff now available from the > comfort of our own homes or local libraries. OK, so it's very annoying > when the record you get exited about turns out to be the one that's > missing, but it's not the end of the world. > > We should just be grateful that the resource is there at all. A query > with the CRO will often produce a copy of the missing record for a small > fee, so all is not lost. > > Rant over. > > Happy New year everyone. > > Lesley Baxendale > Colwyn Bay > > BTW - I have no connection at all with FMP - just a mostly satisfied > subscriber. > > > On 10/01/2014 12:45, Adrian Bruce wrote: >> Regrettably I have found another failure mode for the Cheshire Collection on >> FMP. In this case, images are lost, not hidden. >> >> > > ------------------------------- > 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

Grumble time again, I know people are just trying to be helpful, and I have no wish to offend anyone, nor am I singling out anyone in particular, but would you please stop grumbling about the inadequacies of FMP. Missing records/images for Cheshire are not necessarily the fault of FMP. As they state clearly, their records for Cheshire are mostly taken from LDS films and transcripts, not those held at Cheshire Record Office - hence there may well be some omissions due to that particular record not being transcribed or filmed by the LDS. In addition, there has been much more work done on the original records since the LDS work was carried out & that again could well affect what's available on the FMP site. I agree, that they should make an effort to correct what they can and give proper responses to queries and observations & that certainly doesn't always happen. Don't forget, that it's not that long ago when researching your family history involved long, arduous and often costly hours spent in record offices peering into the usually ancient fiche & film readers. For many of us, that just wasn't an option, so we were well and truly stuck. We should try and focus on all the good stuff now available from the comfort of our own homes or local libraries. OK, so it's very annoying when the record you get exited about turns out to be the one that's missing, but it's not the end of the world. We should just be grateful that the resource is there at all. A query with the CRO will often produce a copy of the missing record for a small fee, so all is not lost. Rant over. Happy New year everyone. Lesley Baxendale Colwyn Bay BTW - I have no connection at all with FMP - just a mostly satisfied subscriber. On 10/01/2014 12:45, Adrian Bruce wrote: > Regrettably I have found another failure mode for the Cheshire Collection on > FMP. In this case, images are lost, not hidden. > >

The marriage allegation will simply an oath that there was no hindrance to the parties marrying. It did not necessarily mean that they did marry, although it is unusual to go through the process of obtaining a licence (which was the purpose of the Bond and Allegation) and then not follow through. Don't forget that FreeBMD and Cheshire BMD, as well as the FreeBMD transcript on Ancestry, are all from the same source, so if the original index to marriages at the GRO is incorrect, so will the others be. The allegation usually indicates where the proposed marriage will take place - I suggest you check the register, if it is a church, just to make sure. Ruth in Hampshire > -----Original Message----- > From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com > [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Julian Ravenscroft > Sent: 10 January 2014 13:07 > To: cheshire@rootsweb.com > Subject: [CHS] Marriage Allegation on FamilySearch but no > marriage found > > Hello All and Happy New Year, > > I was searching for a marriage in Cheshire between James > PENDLEBURY and his wife Ann (no surname known prior to the > search). I found the allegation with Ann DAVENPORT on family > search but no marriage in 1861. Other researchers have James > marrying in Rochdale,Lancashire to an Ann TUDOR and the names > of the children include Tudor as a middle name. > > No marriage for James and Ann DAVENPORT could be found in > FreeBMD, Ancestry or CheshireBMD websites and I wondered if > the marriage had just been missed from transcriptions. No > church name is given by family search. > > Any suggestions welcome > > Best wishes, > J > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Hello All and Happy New Year, I was searching for a marriage in Cheshire between James PENDLEBURY and his wife Ann (no surname known prior to the search). I found the allegation with Ann DAVENPORT on family search but no marriage in 1861. Other researchers have James marrying in Rochdale,Lancashire to an Ann TUDOR and the names of the children include Tudor as a middle name. No marriage for James and Ann DAVENPORT could be found in FreeBMD, Ancestry or CheshireBMD websites and I wondered if the marriage had just been missed from transcriptions. No church name is given by family search. Any suggestions welcome Best wishes, J