Regrettably I have found another failure mode for the Cheshire Collection on FMP. In this case, images are lost, not hidden. "Cheshire Marriage licence bonds and allegations 1606-1905" usually contains images of bonds and allegations. I have described an instance below when only the allegation is shown on FMP and the bond is not shown, not even using a browse to previous or next image. Before you ask - I know the bond is there - I got the details from the microfilm at Chester where bond and allegation are on adjacent frames. Error problem: 1. Search "Parish Records Collection 1538-2005" for marriage of Richard Hickson in 1815, viz: First name(s) : Richard (Include variants) Last name : Hickson (Include variants) Year of marriage : 1815 exact County : Cheshire There are three responses returned for Richard Hickson (plus two non-Cheshire variants). Only one is from "Record source: Cheshire Marriage licence bonds and allegations 1606-1905". (The other two are the parish register of the actual ceremony and the Bishop's Transcript copy of that). The linked image for the response from the "Cheshire Marriage licence bonds and allegations 1606-1905" is the Allegation (i.e. the application for the marriage licence) for Richard's marriage. If I go to the previous and next pages, in no case is the Bond visible for this intended marriage. But, when I inspected the microfilm at Chester Record Office, the Bond and the Allegation are both there, on adjacent frames of the film. The problem is that the image Bond for this marriage is not showing up despite it being filmed. 2. Compare the above to this example: Search "Parish Records Collection 1538-2005" for marriage of Richard Pick* in 1803, viz: First name(s) : Richard (Include variants) Last name : Pick* (note use of wild-card) Year of marriage : 1803 exact County : Cheshire That gives *two* responses from "Cheshire Marriage licence bonds and allegations 1606-1905" index. One points to the image of the Bond and the other points to the image of the Allegation. This is correct. Using previous and next page, I can also navigate from Bond to Allegation and vice versa. Error Summary: - Inconsistent indexing means Richard Hickson's two known images only have one entry in the index (the Allegation); - The unindexed image (the Bond) is then inaccessible from the index (as is to be expected); - The unindexed image (the Bond) is also inaccessible from a previous or next page browse from the Allegation; I have attempted to highlight the missing bond for Richard Hickson on an error report for FMP. Adrian Bruce

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

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

If anyone is looking for a Richard EATON/EATTON of Little Peover, there is a will probated 1705 attached to that for Richard DOWNES WS-1705 pp2-7. HTH, Martin -- "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." (Psa.37) Web: http://www.biblewitness.org

Dear Ruth, Thank you for your email. The Cheshire Wills and Probate records have been transcribed and provided by the Cheshire Archives and Local Studies Service as opposed to being index by findmypast.co.uk. Unfortunately the original records are not kept here they are still held by the Cheshire Archives and Local Studies Service, we see the same online entries as the customer I am afraid. We have however, passed the details onto our Data Team to see if the incorrect images have been assigned to the transcript. Once our Data Team has provided us with an update we will be back in contact, in the meantime we are grateful for your patience whilst we investigate this issue further. Kind Regards, Liam Kelly Findmypast Support Team My comment to the Lists: To be totally pernickety - the Cheshire Wills and Probate records have not been 'transcribed'. They have been 'photographed'. It looks more and more likely that the indexing is from the Cheshire Archives from pre Earwaker days and is being kept by FMP. Time to move on! Let's get it right. Ruth

Hi all, and a Happy New Year to all the folk on the list. Hoping you can help me. I've been searching the newspaper archives for references to boatmen - I have boatman ancestors - and I came across a couple of articles referring to a Boatman's Bethel, or floating chapel, which was set up in Chester in 1877/78. Does anyone know if any photographs of this exist, or have any additional details of it? I am trying to put together a page or two on the web about canal boatmen in general, using the newspaper articles I've been collecting for a number of years now. It seemed a bit daft to have an archive of material and not to make it available to anyone else who might be interested. It's early days yet, but I said I wanted something to be up and running by the New Year. which I have at least managed. Better than nothing, but a long way to go!!!!!! If anyone's interested, the website is www.spellweaver-online.co.uk. The last two pages of the site are the canal information, the rest is the fashion jewellery we sell for a living. If nayone has information which I could include, I'd be pleased to do so. I can see my canal boatmen taking over the site in the end, not just a couple of pages! Angela

I reported another to them yesterday. The will of Isaac VARDEN of Morley, 1674, yeoman is only accessible by searching for John UPTON, 1674 (Dean Row if I remember correctly). Isaac's will appears on images 5 and 6 after John Upton's will and inventory. If you search for Isaac Varden all you get is his inventory. I haven't yet had an acknowledgement which is worrying as the last error I reported (Thpmas instead of Thomas) was corrected within a day over Christmas! Several of the wills that I have searched for, going by the CDRO indexes, have not been found. Perhaps these are hidden too. Perhaps we should keep a list of all the anomalies that we come across and send them to the list when we have a few? Anne Anne Cole, President, Lincolnshire Family History Society Duncalf(e)/Duncuff/Duncuft One-name Study GOONS member 513 http://www.one-name.org/profiles/duncalf.html http://duncalfonenamestudy.tribalpages.com/ -----Original Message----- From: eng-manchester-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:eng-manchester-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Ruth J Sent: 30 December 2013 11:27 To: Cheshire; staffordshire@rootsweb.com; eng-manchester@rootsweb.com Subject: [ENG-MAN] 'Hidden Wills' on FMP Thank you Bev, Anne and Adrian. Unfortunately we're not privy to the agreements made between FMP, Family Search - who photographed the records - and Cheshire Archives who hold the records. So, when pointing a finger, it's difficult to say in which direction it should be pointed. It's all too late. The job is completed. I had assumed that the Archives referenced the bundles rather than individual records, and that the deal made with Family Search was a 'sold as seen' contract. I could be wrong. The original records as shown on FMP have the loose identifying tags (Cheshire Archives?) lying to the left hand side of each document. So it's clear to see that there are definitely two documents each concerning a different person. ELIZABETH WATTS WC 1618 (an inventory) RICHARD WERDEN WS 1618 (a will) Both tags are captured on the first image on the website. When photographing the documents Family Search must have realised that there were records pertaining to more than one person in some of the bundles - but the technician behind the camera would not have been an archivist with the skills and authority required to deal with that. I know from my own experience cataloguing in Archives how tricky it gets when documents have to be re-referenced. Every digit and letter has a purpose. I haven't explored how the referencing works at each of the three stages so I'm out of my depth here. FMP gives no reference at all on their index page. However, I can express my disappointment to FMP because they do have a correction facility on their website and, when something is so obviously in existence as the will I described is, the omission could easily be corrected and the correction referred back to Family Search and Cheshire Archives as a matter of course. It bugs me that my complaints about similar occurrences have been ignored. I know! I'm back to my old beef about insufficient rigour being applied especially when organisations are taking money from us for sloppy workmanship. I was simply interested to know what experiences others had had in similar circumstances. I've written again to FMP in this instance and I await a reply from them. I will also contact Cheshire Archives. Watch this space. Ruth :-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~: Except for personal messages, please post replies to the list. Other people can learn from them! Be sure list mail is in PLAIN TEXT. Please SNIP when replying. Buy or sell family research items on the GEN-MAT-UKI mailing list. No fees! :-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~:-~: ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to ENG-MANCHESTER-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Tony I know nothing of the Vernon family, but you are correct about "s.p." ("sine prole") which means died without issue. Guy Lawton On 30 December 2013 10:17, Tony Vernon <tonyvernon4@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > James Vernon b. 13 march 1604 d. 4 April 1675 of Chester, Cheshire, is my > ancestor, by way of his son Thomas, a Quaker that came to Pennsylvania in > 1681. I have seen in many places online that his father was Hugh Vernon b. > 14 October 1583 d. 1621 also of Cheshire. There is some dispute over > Hugh's father. Some have Randle Vernon 1534-1618 as his father, others > have George Vernon 1540-1583. I did find a will for a Randle Vernon who > died in 1618 and ordered it, so I'm hoping that will help. > > Another question I have is two generations up. Thomas Vernon 1504-1580 is > supposed to be the next ancestor up the line. He in turn is the son of a > Richard Vernon. One cousin here in the US suggests that is Richard Vernon > of Haslington. I looked in the Visitations of Cheshire 1580, and it has > Richard with a son Thomas. But there's a notation of 's.p.' under his > name, which I believe means he died with no children. Is that correct? > Unfortunately, the Vernon families are littered with Richard Vernons so > finding the right one is a bit tricky. Some have Thomas as the son of > Richard Vernon of Haddon Hall, who is the right age, but I don't think that > works either. The Vernon line of Haddon Hall died out when George Vernon > had no male heirs so I think that is a false trail, correct? > > Any suggestions as to how to research this would be most appreciated! > Unfortunately, I live just outside Washington DC in the U.S., so making a > visit to local sites is out of the question right now. Online is the way I > need to go for the moment. Please let me know if there are avenues I can > search to try to find these answers. Thanks in advance. > > Best regards, > Tony Vernon > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

George WATTS of Adlington was buried at St Peter's Church, Prestbury, 26 April 1662, and listed in Prestbury PRs as being buried 'in templo' (inside the church). I believe that MI's have been recorded for this church graveyard. They may include memorials inside the church, too. Is anyone visiting the church in the near future who might be able to take a photograph of any memorial to him there? Failing that, perhaps they would be kind enough to note the inscription which might give me a clue to his age at death and any names of family members buried with him. I would be very grateful. Ruth

The Brownies (Girlguides) are celebrating 100 years in 2014. If anyone is interested, there is an exhibition at the Nantwich Museum of the history from Rosebuds 1914 to Brownies Guides 2014. The exhibition is now on until 23rd January 2014. Ann Harris

Thank you Bev, Anne and Adrian. Unfortunately we're not privy to the agreements made between FMP, Family Search - who photographed the records - and Cheshire Archives who hold the records. So, when pointing a finger, it's difficult to say in which direction it should be pointed. It's all too late. The job is completed. I had assumed that the Archives referenced the bundles rather than individual records, and that the deal made with Family Search was a 'sold as seen' contract. I could be wrong. The original records as shown on FMP have the loose identifying tags (Cheshire Archives?) lying to the left hand side of each document. So it's clear to see that there are definitely two documents each concerning a different person. ELIZABETH WATTS WC 1618 (an inventory) RICHARD WERDEN WS 1618 (a will) Both tags are captured on the first image on the website. When photographing the documents Family Search must have realised that there were records pertaining to more than one person in some of the bundles - but the technician behind the camera would not have been an archivist with the skills and authority required to deal with that. I know from my own experience cataloguing in Archives how tricky it gets when documents have to be re-referenced. Every digit and letter has a purpose. I haven't explored how the referencing works at each of the three stages so I'm out of my depth here. FMP gives no reference at all on their index page. However, I can express my disappointment to FMP because they do have a correction facility on their website and, when something is so obviously in existence as the will I described is, the omission could easily be corrected and the correction referred back to Family Search and Cheshire Archives as a matter of course. It bugs me that my complaints about similar occurrences have been ignored. I know! I'm back to my old beef about insufficient rigour being applied especially when organisations are taking money from us for sloppy workmanship. I was simply interested to know what experiences others had had in similar circumstances. I've written again to FMP in this instance and I await a reply from them. I will also contact Cheshire Archives. Watch this space. Ruth

Hello, James Vernon b. 13 march 1604 d. 4 April 1675 of Chester, Cheshire, is my ancestor, by way of his son Thomas, a Quaker that came to Pennsylvania in 1681. I have seen in many places online that his father was Hugh Vernon b. 14 October 1583 d. 1621 also of Cheshire. There is some dispute over Hugh's father. Some have Randle Vernon 1534-1618 as his father, others have George Vernon 1540-1583. I did find a will for a Randle Vernon who died in 1618 and ordered it, so I'm hoping that will help. Another question I have is two generations up. Thomas Vernon 1504-1580 is supposed to be the next ancestor up the line. He in turn is the son of a Richard Vernon. One cousin here in the US suggests that is Richard Vernon of Haslington. I looked in the Visitations of Cheshire 1580, and it has Richard with a son Thomas. But there's a notation of 's.p.' under his name, which I believe means he died with no children. Is that correct? Unfortunately, the Vernon families are littered with Richard Vernons so finding the right one is a bit tricky. Some have Thomas as the son of Richard Vernon of Haddon Hall, who is the right age, but I don't think that works either. The Vernon line of Haddon Hall died out when George Vernon had no male heirs so I think that is a false trail, correct? Any suggestions as to how to research this would be most appreciated! Unfortunately, I live just outside Washington DC in the U.S., so making a visit to local sites is out of the question right now. Online is the way I need to go for the moment. Please let me know if there are avenues I can search to try to find these answers. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Tony Vernon

<<snipped>> I understand why 'bundles' of documents must be kept as 'bundles' by archivists but the information that they contain could be teased out when putting it on websites. <<snipped>> Absolutely. Not just "could" but "should" - indexing should be by will, not bundle. <<snipped>> I was searching for a will of Elizabeth WATTS, a widow of Great Sutton of 1618, and found a simple inventory of four items only ... plus, in the same bundle, a will of Richard WORDEN. ... I then searched for the will of Richard WORDEN + variants (just in case it was recorded in its own right) and none was found. <<snipped>> Interestingly, many of the Earwaker compilations of Cheshire Wills are on archive.org. In particular, there is "An Index to the Wills and Inventories now preserved in the Court of Probate, at CHESTER, FROM A.D. 1545 TO 1620", compiled by Earwaker in 1879. This has an index entry for "Werden, Richard, of Chester 1618" but no Elizabeth Watts index! Earwaker's indices came from various original indexes at Chester and this suggests that anyone finding an entry in Earwaker that isn't on FMP, might try adjacent entries - matching year and first-letter-of-surname, I think - followed by browsing thru the images. Worth a go... FMP cannot be blamed for the quality of indexing, which came from FamilySearch. On the other hand they should have a mechanism in place to deal with all the errors. The correction mechanism that they have is accessed from the window or tab of the image but only allows replacement values. This is another case when the ability to add alternate indexes (as per Ancestry) would have been invaluable. Adrian B

Great find for someone Ruth. Very public spirited of you to alert us to it. Admirable! I'm very disappointed that FMP have not responded. Unlike Ancestry, it's not obvious on their website how to flag up mistakes of any kind, including omissions. Have you tried ringing them? Carole Sent from my iPad On 28 Dec 2013, at 11:45, "Ruth J" <ruthgenda@btinternet.com> wrote: > Whilst researching the WATTS family in Cheshire (in the main - but reaching > into Staffordshire and Lancashire at times) I've been searching the Wills > and other Probate records viewable in the original on FMP. > > This morning I came across an occurrence which quite often happens with > these records. Sometimes several wills are found in their original bundle > presumably having arrived at the Record Office from whichever repository > they had been kept - the Archdeaconry, a solicitor, etc - and are not listed > in FMP neither under the name of the first deceased nor in their own right. > Therefore they cannot be found under the usual method of FMP search. I > understand why 'bundles' of documents must be kept as 'bundles' by > archivists but the information that they contain could be teased out when > putting it on websites. As it is, these probate records are lost to us > web-searchers. > > I was searching for a will of Elizabeth WATTS, a widow of Great Sutton of > 1618, and found a simple inventory of four items only, worth a total of 39s, > plus, in the same bundle, a will of Richard WORDEN. This second document is > tightly written and very detailed. It contains lots of names including those > of his wife, Ales, six sons, Edward, Thomas, John, Richard, George and > William, and details of his land and tenancies. It is one large document > and it covers 3 pages on the FMP website. There is no documentary evidence > showing the worth of RW but he was certainly worth a great deal more than > 39s. FMP state on the index notes that the will is contested. But, of > course, there is no will of Elizabeth WATTS - the will is RW's. Then why not > say so? I then searched for the will of Richard WORDEN + variants (just in > case it was recorded in its own right) and none was found. > > Without transcribing the whole document - early 17thC, a task and a half and > only briefly skimmed - it's difficult to know whether the will was contested > and by whom, or not. What the connection between Elizabeth WATTS and > Richard WARDEN is/was has to remain a mystery for the present. > But Richard WARDEN's will should not remain hidden IMHO. My requests to FMP > have fallen on deaf ears when I have raised this issue in other such cases - > each one slightly different. I wonder, has any other Lister had similar > experiences with 'hidden wills/probate records' such as this? What has FMP > said to you? I have never had a reply. > > In this case there is supporting evidence of RW's existence. > Richard WARDEN = Alice BANNESTER 3 Jan 1582 St John's, Chester > But in other cases I've raised there is no supporting BapMBur evidence that > a person existed - there are just some probate documents wedged in someone > else's bundle for no apparent reason. A real shame! > > Ruth > > ****************************** > 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

Whilst researching the WATTS family in Cheshire (in the main - but reaching into Staffordshire and Lancashire at times) I've been searching the Wills and other Probate records viewable in the original on FMP. This morning I came across an occurrence which quite often happens with these records. Sometimes several wills are found in their original bundle presumably having arrived at the Record Office from whichever repository they had been kept - the Archdeaconry, a solicitor, etc - and are not listed in FMP neither under the name of the first deceased nor in their own right. Therefore they cannot be found under the usual method of FMP search. I understand why 'bundles' of documents must be kept as 'bundles' by archivists but the information that they contain could be teased out when putting it on websites. As it is, these probate records are lost to us web-searchers. I was searching for a will of Elizabeth WATTS, a widow of Great Sutton of 1618, and found a simple inventory of four items only, worth a total of 39s, plus, in the same bundle, a will of Richard WORDEN. This second document is tightly written and very detailed. It contains lots of names including those of his wife, Ales, six sons, Edward, Thomas, John, Richard, George and William, and details of his land and tenancies. It is one large document and it covers 3 pages on the FMP website. There is no documentary evidence showing the worth of RW but he was certainly worth a great deal more than 39s. FMP state on the index notes that the will is contested. But, of course, there is no will of Elizabeth WATTS - the will is RW's. Then why not say so? I then searched for the will of Richard WORDEN + variants (just in case it was recorded in its own right) and none was found. Without transcribing the whole document - early 17thC, a task and a half and only briefly skimmed - it's difficult to know whether the will was contested and by whom, or not. What the connection between Elizabeth WATTS and Richard WARDEN is/was has to remain a mystery for the present. But Richard WARDEN's will should not remain hidden IMHO. My requests to FMP have fallen on deaf ears when I have raised this issue in other such cases - each one slightly different. I wonder, has any other Lister had similar experiences with 'hidden wills/probate records' such as this? What has FMP said to you? I have never had a reply. In this case there is supporting evidence of RW's existence. Richard WARDEN = Alice BANNESTER 3 Jan 1582 St John's, Chester But in other cases I've raised there is no supporting BapMBur evidence that a person existed - there are just some probate documents wedged in someone else's bundle for no apparent reason. A real shame! Ruth

Dear Sir/ Madam, We are all keen to help, here on the Cheshire List. I can see that your biggest problem with this name is the variation in spelling. As an example this, couple who were married at Gawsworth in 1809 : Thomas Dammont and Elizabeth Dick. There is also a Hannah Dammont who was buried 26th May 1774 at Acton , near Nantwich. I see a Peter Dayment in the 1861 census born Congleton. In 1904 there is a person in Congleton called Daymount. You will have seen Jane Daymont born 1821 in Cheshire, a silk piecer in the 1841 census. Most of the Daymonts are in Devon as you will have found but the spelling of the name in Cheshire is quite varied. I don't see any Cheshire wills with any of the above spellings, unfortunately. Interesting to note that Robert gives the middle name Dick to his son, Thomas in 1839 so James and Thomas Sen were most likely brothers. I will see if I can find out more at the FHSC Research Centre when it reopens in January. Regards, Lyn At 19:48 23/12/2013, you wrote: >To whom it may concern: > >I am seeking anyone with information on the earliest members of the >uncommon and obscure family of DAYMONT, of Astbury, Congleton, Gawsworth, >and Bosley, Cheshire. > >I am descended in the female line from a Robert James Daymont >(c.1812-1880), tobacconist and news agent, of the parish of Horsleydown St. >John, Surrey. According to all the census records I've seen for him, he >reported his birthplace as "Gawsworth, Cheshire." He was christened at >about the age of 11 years, in the parish of St. Saviour, Southwark, Surrey, >as the son of a James Daymont, MARINER, and his wife Elizabeth. The date of >this christening was 2nd March, 1823. > >I have not successfully been able thus far to trace Robert's parents James >and Elizabeth, but believe the likelihood is strong that James (at least) >is probably related somehow to the slightly later Daymonts of Astbury, >Congleton, and Bosley, which--as anyone with knowledge of Cheshire >geography will know--are all quite close in distance to Gawsworth. > >I estimate James Daymont's birthdate to have been something around 1780 to >1790, and he probably was born in or near Congleton or Gawsworth. > >In view of the apparent fact that the Cheshire parish records prior to 1837 >are so scarce, as far as the mention of any Daymonts, any help or advice on >how to trace this family in Cheshire will be much appreciated! > >I am a professional genealogist, with over 30 years of experience, but do >need help with this particular family, since the historical record of them >is apparently so scanty! > >Sincerely, > >T.J. White >Atlanta, Georgia, USA > >------------------------------- >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: 3658/6945 - Release Date: 12/23/13

To whom it may concern: I am seeking anyone with information on the earliest members of the uncommon and obscure family of DAYMONT, of Astbury, Congleton, Gawsworth, and Bosley, Cheshire. I am descended in the female line from a Robert James Daymont (c.1812-1880), tobacconist and news agent, of the parish of Horsleydown St. John, Surrey. According to all the census records I've seen for him, he reported his birthplace as "Gawsworth, Cheshire." He was christened at about the age of 11 years, in the parish of St. Saviour, Southwark, Surrey, as the son of a James Daymont, MARINER, and his wife Elizabeth. The date of this christening was 2nd March, 1823. I have not successfully been able thus far to trace Robert's parents James and Elizabeth, but believe the likelihood is strong that James (at least) is probably related somehow to the slightly later Daymonts of Astbury, Congleton, and Bosley, which--as anyone with knowledge of Cheshire geography will know--are all quite close in distance to Gawsworth. I estimate James Daymont's birthdate to have been something around 1780 to 1790, and he probably was born in or near Congleton or Gawsworth. In view of the apparent fact that the Cheshire parish records prior to 1837 are so scarce, as far as the mention of any Daymonts, any help or advice on how to trace this family in Cheshire will be much appreciated! I am a professional genealogist, with over 30 years of experience, but do need help with this particular family, since the historical record of them is apparently so scanty! Sincerely, T.J. White Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Thanks Alan and Rod, That particular copy has been with Abe Books for about 2 years. I have been tempted before, but last time I used it for research I was O.K. with the Library edition. I'm hoping not to have purchase, as it sounds like it will need to be repaired for long term use. It's quite a coincidence that one of the pages showing on the web-site is the one I need - Rod, your eyesight is a lot better than mine, I've been trying unsuccessfully to increase and sharpen up the size of the text with my photo software. So thanks for your extracts. For any one that is interested, Edward Rothwell was a school teacher, for most of his teaching years in Witton Street (Witton-cum-Twambrooks). In 1831 an advertisement for the Commercial School, Witton Street, announces that the school will re-open on the 11 July when Board and instruction in English Grammar, Composition and Elocution, Ancient and Modern History, Arithmetic, Mensuration, Algebra, Geometry, Land Surveying, Book-keeping, Geography, Projection of Maps and the use of the Globes &c. cost - under 10's 20 guineas per year, 10+ 25 guineas per year with an additional 2 guineas for washing - I wonder - was that optional!! Elaine. Subject: Re: [CHS] Northwich Congregational Church - Bicentenary Book 1908 On sale at abebooks for £12

<<snipped>> North Rode is a modern church dating from 1846 so I assume there are no ancient parish registers. This may explain the "missing" records! <<snipped>> Yes and no - there are parish registers in the Cheshire Collection on FMP starting later than 1846. However, when I look in the Cheshire Archives catalogue for North Rode CofE there are only two physical volumes, viz: Reference P 318/6895/2 Title Register of Baptisms Date 1846-2004 Reference P 318/6895/2 Title Register of Burials Date 1846-2004 So I guess they filled up so slowly that they only used two books up to 2004. Which possibly means that either they've not been filmed yet, or as parts of the books spill over into the years regarded as "confidential", the whole register has been filmed but left unloaded. In other words, it's not the 1846 that's presumably driving the non-appearance, it's the 2004. Adrian B PS - Yes, I know those references don't make sense - you surely can't have 2 volumes with the same reference, but they are a copy of the online catalogue. The hierarchy doesn't match the references, so maybe they are temporary values???

North Rode is a modern church dating from 1846 so I assume there are no ancient parish registers. This may explain the "missing" records! Guy Lawton On 21 December 2013 16:35, Adrian Bruce <abruce@madasafish.com> wrote: > <<snipped>> pretty sure Cheadle was one of the six parishes refused > permission. Someone from our Society will have a better memory than me for > the names of the others. > <<snipped>> > > Oh - six?! That passed me by completely.... Thanks for that - it is not > impossible that I have hit others in the six and just imagined it was a > case > of that single PR being lost. > > So that's: > - Astbury - no PRs on FMP but one can buy a CD of the PRs. BTs on FMP; > - Cheadle, St Mary - no PRs on FMP it seems. PRs seem to be scheduled for > Cheshire PR DB in next load. BTs on FMP; > - Northenden - out of scope for FMP Cheshire Collection as not in Diocese > of Chester - so may or may not be one of the six. Northenden St. Wilfred is > part of the Manchester Collection on Ancestry, so nothing is lost; > > All suggestions about the other missing parishes welcome... > > There is an FS coverage table on http://goo.gl/VtpWzU This is not > guaranteed > to provide a full answer as it bundles all churches in a single town > together - e.g. it does not split the Chester parishes. Also it is unclear > if it's a PR-and-BT coverage table or a PR coverage table. As Astbury has > only 2 records, this suggests it is a PR coverage table. However, there are > odd chapels in there that I find it difficult to explain unless it's the > BTs > that are counted. > > But if I *swiftly* compare this table to Brett Langston's 2002 book on > Cheshire PRs, then I add the following comments: > - Guilden Sutton, St John, is not in the table so may be omitted from the > Cheshire Collection on FMP. > - Hoylake, Holy Trinity, is not in the table. > - North Rode is not in the table - PRs may remain at church. > > This might be the missing three omissions??? But there were numerous other > small churches founded recently where the PRs were still (in 2002) at the > church, explaining their omission from the Cheshire Collection on FMP. I > have not listed those. > > Anyone who can correct errors and omissions please shout! > > Adrian > > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >