Margaret, Yours is the first Cheshire post I have seen for a whole week. I thought my email system had collapsed. I have had a quick search but have not come up with a solution. I note that the mother was MASON and that there were 6 other births to a MASON mother in that area and time frame. It may be worth looking for them too. Jessie was born in 1911 in Birkenhead and if her birth month was later than April it would eliminate the possibility of emigration (assuming that this is the same mother). I also see that a Nora aged 0 died in 1906 in Birkenhead. Are you sure the mother was still alive in April 1911? Otherwise the children could be with another family(ies). There are a couple of Idas with grandparents or uncles. Sorry I cannot help more at the moment but I will look again later. Regards, Eric Millward

Hi Eric, Thank you so much for looking. I don't know if their parents were living in 1911 so I have searched for any Ida and Nora/Norah and even just JONES (of which there are many!!!) I also searched Cheshire Births on the Cheshire site with just JONES and mother MASON and found 7 other possible children born between 1901 and 1911 and searched for them as well. I didn't find Ida or Nora in any of the homes. The mother was Frances Jane MASON and the last I see of her is 1901 in Hove, Sussex, age 28, b Hawarden, Chester. No luck finding a marriage on FreeBMD. I know Ida did not die in infancy as she and her sister Nora came to Canada and crossed into the US. Ida married George H. PRITCHARD in Seattle, Washington and died there at age 99. My niece married her grandson so I am going to have to pick the PRITCHARD brains for more info. Thank you again for your time Eric. Much appreciated. Marg >From the Beautiful British Columbia Cariboo Region, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Millward" <bruckshaw1@tiscali.co.uk> To: "Margaret Cambridge" <talktomarg@shaw.ca>; "Cheshire List" <cheshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 2:17 AM Subject: Re: [CHS] Surname JONES Margaret, Yours is the first Cheshire post I have seen for a whole week. I thought my email system had collapsed. I have had a quick search but have not come up with a solution. I note that the mother was MASON and that there were 6 other births to a MASON mother in that area and time frame. It may be worth looking for them too. Jessie was born in 1911 in Birkenhead and if her birth month was later than April it would eliminate the possibility of emigration (assuming that this is the same mother). I also see that a Nora aged 0 died in 1906 in Birkenhead. Are you sure the mother was still alive in April 1911? Otherwise the children could be with another family(ies). There are a couple of Idas with grandparents or uncles. Sorry I cannot help more at the moment but I will look again later. Regards, Eric Millward

Ida Jane JONES was born 1904 and her sister Nora May JONES was born 1905 both in Birkenhead. Mother was Frances Jane and father possibly Henry or William. I have searched every way possible to find them in 1911 with no success. If someone has time could they have a look. I would really appreciate it. They must be there but I can't see them. Thank you.......... Marg >From the Beautiful British Columbia Cariboo Region, Canada

From: "Eric Millward" <bruckshaw1@tiscali.co.uk> > Is anyone researching BANCROFT in Hazel Grove (or Bramhall) please? > > I am partiuclarly interested in John BANCROFT b c 1816 who married > twice (Hannah and Elizabeth) but both marriages have eluded me so far. I > think Hannah died in 1844. My "guess" is that Hannah was BOWDEN and > Elizabeth was DRINKWATER. > > Thanks, > > Eric Millward> Further to my earlier reply, Cheshire BMD has a HANNAH BOWDEN who married JOSEPH BANCROFT (not John) at Stockport in a civil marriage (register office, presumably) in 1850. FreeBMD shows this in the final quarter of 1850. Do you think perhaps you could have become slightly confused? -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

Roy, Please see my reply to Holly. Your info about the 1844 burial of Hannah BANCROFT of Thomas St (the one near St Thomas' Church, Stockport?) is a surprise as John was in Cheadle Hulme in 1841 and 1851. I must look at that more carefully in the 1841 census for that area. Thanks for your input ... much appreciated. Eric

From: "Eric Millward" <bruckshaw1@tiscali.co.uk> > Is anyone researching BANCROFT in Hazel Grove (or Bramhall) please? > > I am partiuclarly interested in John BANCROFT b c 1816 who married > twice (Hannah and Elizabeth) but both marriages have eluded me so far. I > think Hannah died in 1844. My "guess" is that Hannah was BOWDEN and > Elizabeth was DRINKWATER.> Could you please tell us why you think John Bancroft married firstly Hannah Bowden and then Elizabeth Drinkwater? I cannot find matching marriages for either spouse at FreeBMD or CheshireBMD, the latter being the more precise in detail since, as you know, FreeBMD has four marriages to a page at that period in time. Cheshire BMD is among the best and most comprehensively covered counties at the UK BMD website, BTW. Nor can I find in the 1841 census a John Bancroft in Cheshire who was married to a Hannah or Elizabeth. There is a John Bancroft of the right age, born about 1816, who was living at Hyde Lane, Stockport, but his presumed wife (relationships were not given in 1841) was Eliza, though they had a 2-year-old daughter called Hannah. I suppose it's possible the marriage was before 1837 but the only one I can find at FamilySearch is of John Bancroft to Elizabeth Bardsley at Cheadle on 21 December 1834. Cheshire BMD has a marriage for John Bancroft at Stockport St Mary in 1838 to Ann Bibby or Ann Redfern (the same woman in two different names) and FreeBMD shows this to have been in the first quarter of 1838. There are also marriages for John Bancroft to Elizabeth Walsh at Stockport St Mary in 1841 and John Bancroft to Hannah Longson, also at Stockport St Mary, in 1846. The Hannah Bancroft who died in 1844 was buried on 29 May 1844 at Stockport St Thomas, aged 28. She was of Thomas Street, according to the image from the parish register at Findmypast but there is no indication of who she was, whether married or a single woman. Perhaps you could offer a little more information on to why you think John Bancroft married Hannah Bowden and Elizabeth Drinkwater, and in which order? -- Roy Stockdill Genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Famous family trees blog: http://blog.findmypast.co.uk/tag/roy-stockdill/ "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

Is anyone researching BANCROFT in Hazel Grove (or Bramhall) please? I am partiuclarly interested in John BANCROFT b c 1816 who married twice (Hannah and Elizabeth) but both marriages have eluded me so far. I think Hannah died in 1844. My "guess" is that Hannah was BOWDEN and Elizabeth was DRINKWATER. Thanks, Eric Millward

Hi again Firstly, my thanks to Adrian, Elaine and Diana for their helpful and speedy responses.. Adrian, I'm not even sure how to go about looking for the staff records as I'm not exactly sure what to look for nor in what part of the Brunner Mond records to look, hence my original question in the hope that someone more knowledgeable could point me in the right direction. Elaine and Diana...I'll email you both off list with the details I have. Any help would be most welcome. Thanks again. Michelle

<<snipped>> Adrian, I'm not even sure how to go about looking for the staff records as I'm not exactly sure what to look for nor in what part of the Brunner Mond records to look, hence my original question in the hope that someone more knowledgeable could point me in the right direction. <<snipped>> Yes, I sympathize... company records are seldom structured for the benefit of genealogists! For what it's worth, I've just looked at A2A http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/advanced-search.aspx?tab=1 and searched for the phrase "Brunner Mond" with one or more of the words "staff" and "employee". That gives three different places holding BM records but only Chester RO looks particularly promising. The records DIC/BM 1 to DIC/BM 20 seem to comprise the bulk of the interesting staff and they include DIC/BM 8 Wages books, accident books and other papers relating to employees and working conditions While that includes Wages Books for Winnington works, these seem to be dated 1875-1882. DIC/BM 8/2 covers Pay sheets (Winnington works). "Recording daily attendance, total shifts days or hours worked per week, rates of pay, deductions and net amounts paid. Also including details of holiday pay from May 1884." These go from 1883 up to 1888 then there's one extra sequence 1904-1907, which might be of interest. On the other hand, I suspect these are unlikely to contain diagnostic details such as date of birth. One of the more interesting items is Register of absentees (Winnington works?), DIC/BM 8/5, 1902-1916, "Including details of disciplinary procedures taken against employees 1902-10 and lists of women on day (bag room), and shift (mills), work 1916." Not sure how useful that lot would be to anyone without extensive access to Chester, but at least it gives a flavour of what's there. And nothing's standing out as the obvious thing to ask someone to look at... Adrian

Michelle, A lot of ICI records are held at the Catalyst Science Discovery Centre/Museum in Widnes (www.catalyst.org.uk). As Elaine says if you could send details of his name and dates I could also look this up for you as I originate from the area and have long-standing family connections with ICI and Brunner-Mond. Diana Leitch On 19 September 2013 23:19, Elaine Hanson <odessa@dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > Michelle, > > If you're not adverse to giving his name on the list please do so, it might > help those with some local knowledge. > > If you'd prefer not to, if you'd like to email me off-list. then I do have > some I.C.I. lists or if you can supply a date of death, I may be able to > help with a newspaper look-up. > > Regards, > Elaine. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mich Gill > Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 9:06 PM > To: CHESHIRE@rootsweb.com > Subject: [CHS] Alkali worker 1912 > > Hi Listers > At last I've managed to get back on the list with an email address that the > rootsweb bots like and I have a little question for you knowledgeable folks > out there... > To cut a long story short-ish, I'm trying to establish for the sake of > clarity the identity of a worker named in a letter in July 1912.. The said > letter is part of the Brunner Mond collection and also gives his > (presumably) works number and place of work (I think).. but that alone is > insufficient to make a definite identification. The worker in question > could well be my great-grandfather but without a home address or something > more personal to "place" him, it could well be his cousin of the very same > name... or someone totally unrelated. > Does anyone have any ideas on how I could find out the personal details of > the worker in question? > Any pointers would be most welcome. > Thanks > Michelle (northern Spain) > > ------------------------------- > 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 > -- Dr Diana M. Leitch BSc, PhD, FRSC, Information Consultant.

Michelle, If you're not adverse to giving his name on the list please do so, it might help those with some local knowledge. If you'd prefer not to, if you'd like to email me off-list. then I do have some I.C.I. lists or if you can supply a date of death, I may be able to help with a newspaper look-up. Regards, Elaine. -----Original Message----- From: Mich Gill Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 9:06 PM To: CHESHIRE@rootsweb.com Subject: [CHS] Alkali worker 1912 Hi Listers At last I've managed to get back on the list with an email address that the rootsweb bots like and I have a little question for you knowledgeable folks out there... To cut a long story short-ish, I'm trying to establish for the sake of clarity the identity of a worker named in a letter in July 1912.. The said letter is part of the Brunner Mond collection and also gives his (presumably) works number and place of work (I think).. but that alone is insufficient to make a definite identification. The worker in question could well be my great-grandfather but without a home address or something more personal to "place" him, it could well be his cousin of the very same name... or someone totally unrelated. Does anyone have any ideas on how I could find out the personal details of the worker in question? Any pointers would be most welcome. Thanks Michelle (northern Spain) ------------------------------- 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>> To cut a long story short-ish, I'm trying to establish for the sake of clarity the identity of a worker named in a letter in July 1912.. The said letter is part of the Brunner Mond collection and also gives his (presumably) works number and place of work (I think).. but that alone is insufficient to make a definite identification. <<snipped>> Probably either a dumb or impractical question - but have you exhausted the Brunner Mond staff records? Or even the ICI records? (1926 marks the changeover, I believe). When working with the Crewe Railway Works staff records on Ancestry, I found lots of people would be recorded several times so that even if one reference was missing, there were other chances to find their date-of-birth (say), right up to the date of their leaving. Staff, pension, union records....? Of course, I've no idea whether such staff records exist.... Probably at Chester if they are - which isn't as simple as a bus ride for you I know. Adrian B

Hi Listers At last I've managed to get back on the list with an email address that the rootsweb bots like and I have a little question for you knowledgeable folks out there... To cut a long story short-ish, I'm trying to establish for the sake of clarity the identity of a worker named in a letter in July 1912.. The said letter is part of the Brunner Mond collection and also gives his (presumably) works number and place of work (I think).. but that alone is insufficient to make a definite identification. The worker in question could well be my great-grandfather but without a home address or something more personal to "place" him, it could well be his cousin of the very same name... or someone totally unrelated. Does anyone have any ideas on how I could find out the personal details of the worker in question? Any pointers would be most welcome. Thanks Michelle (northern Spain)

Many thanks Adrian for your very informative answer. I had already browsed to and fro in the images with no success. I did note that the format of "mine" was different to the others and now, due to your answer, I know the difference between a bond and and allegation. As it happens I have already sent a "correction" to FMP with only a comment by the ages saying "Where did this come from?" Yesterday, when I posted my query, that was one item out of several that made me query whether my data was correct. But I am now beginning to unravel the apparent conflicts and I am reasonably sure that it must, somewhere, read "Over 21". Thanks again, Christine -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Bruce Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 5:17 PM To: 'Christine Benson' Cc: 'CHESHIRE mailing list' Subject: RE: [CHS] Age query on marriage licence for William THOMPSTONE <<snipped>> I have found a marriage licence bond/allegation on Findmypast for William THOMPSTONE and Mary WHITTAKER(S) (WHITTEKERS) dated 26 Mar 1798. The transcript states that he is 21 and she is 19. Since I believe him to be about 28 I looked for the ages on the original. However, I can find no reference to ages or dates of birth there. <<snipped>> No, you're not going daft. The ages are in the index, and there are no ages on the page image. The FMP index links to an image of the _Bond_. Ages are written on Allegations (effectively, they are the application forms). At this era both bond and allegation _should_ be created and saved. The fact that your index looks like the index to an allegation makes me believe that somewhere in the world, that allegation exists and contains the ages. (Where William's age may well read "21 and upwards".) But what has happened to it, I really don't know. Since I have a subs, I can browse to previous and next images. The bond and allegation are usually adjacent because that's the way the stuff ended up filed and so it was microfilmed like that. However, browsing in both directions, there is no allegation for this couple (with or without ages) within a half dozen or so images. But it gets weirder. I went back something like 6 images and every single one of them (except yours!) is an allegation - not a single bond. But the original bonds were NOT lost - they are there on the microfilm as I can see the edge of the back of a bond on the left of the frame of each allegation - I can see enough of the (reversed) wording to recognise it as a bond. Because there is only a single entry in the FamilySearch index as well, I think somehow FS fouled up when they indexed this microfilm - probably only indexing the allegations, when they should have indexed both bond and allegation. And in your case, there seems to have been a double foul-up because while they indexed the allegation, they pointed it to the bond. If all the above is close to the truth, there's possibly no point raising a query with FMP to see if they can locate the missing allegation. The most sensible thing (which may or may not be practical) is to get someone to look at the microfilm at Chester Record Office to see if the allegation is there. Only then would it be sensible to go to FMP to see what they have compared to what's on the film. Adrian B PS - sorry if this is complicated - but that's reality here, I fear!

<<snipped>> I have found a marriage licence bond/allegation on Findmypast for William THOMPSTONE and Mary WHITTAKER(S) (WHITTEKERS) dated 26 Mar 1798. The transcript states that he is 21 and she is 19. Since I believe him to be about 28 I looked for the ages on the original. However, I can find no reference to ages or dates of birth there. <<snipped>> No, you're not going daft. The ages are in the index, and there are no ages on the page image. The FMP index links to an image of the _Bond_. Ages are written on Allegations (effectively, they are the application forms). At this era both bond and allegation _should_ be created and saved. The fact that your index looks like the index to an allegation makes me believe that somewhere in the world, that allegation exists and contains the ages. (Where William's age may well read "21 and upwards".) But what has happened to it, I really don't know. Since I have a subs, I can browse to previous and next images. The bond and allegation are usually adjacent because that's the way the stuff ended up filed and so it was microfilmed like that. However, browsing in both directions, there is no allegation for this couple (with or without ages) within a half dozen or so images. But it gets weirder. I went back something like 6 images and every single one of them (except yours!) is an allegation - not a single bond. But the original bonds were NOT lost - they are there on the microfilm as I can see the edge of the back of a bond on the left of the frame of each allegation - I can see enough of the (reversed) wording to recognise it as a bond. Because there is only a single entry in the FamilySearch index as well, I think somehow FS fouled up when they indexed this microfilm - probably only indexing the allegations, when they should have indexed both bond and allegation. And in your case, there seems to have been a double foul-up because while they indexed the allegation, they pointed it to the bond. If all the above is close to the truth, there's possibly no point raising a query with FMP to see if they can locate the missing allegation. The most sensible thing (which may or may not be practical) is to get someone to look at the microfilm at Chester Record Office to see if the allegation is there. Only then would it be sensible to go to FMP to see what they have compared to what's on the film. Adrian B PS - sorry if this is complicated - but that's reality here, I fear!

Hi All, I have found a marriage licence bond/allegation on Findmypast for William THOMPSTONE and Mary WHITTAKER(S) (WHITTEKERS) dated 26 Mar 1798. The transcript states that he is 21 and she is 19. Since I believe him to be about 28 I looked for the ages on the original. However, I can find no reference to ages or dates of birth there. I expected to find "over 21" but can't. So I am puzzled as to where these ages have come from. The age of 19 for Mary is correct. Am I not reading the document clearly? Or where have the ages on the transcript come from? I still want to be sure I have the right William and the age casts a degree of doubt on that. Any help greatly appreciated. Christine

That makes sense, he did have a subscription a while ago. $59.99 seems very cheap to me for a worldwide subscription. Vanessa    All records are subject to error. Let they without typo caste tea thirst scone! View my photostream at http://www.flickr.com/photos/snapshistory/ ________________________________ From: Andy <andycandlish@ozemail.com.au> To: Vanessa Dixon <vanessal.dixon@btinternet.com>; Rootsweb <CHESHIRE@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, 14 September 2013, 2:19 Subject: Re: [CHS] Cheshire records on Findmypast Hi   I think your friend should contact FMP and sort it out with them. The amount he has been charged is way less than the rates quoted on the various FMP websites. One possibility is that he has a now defunct subscription with limited access. When FMP expanded outside of the UK I think that subscriptions to the likes of Ireland and Australia were separate subscriptions, maybe your friend has an old subscription that isn’t sold now but can be renewed. In theory renewing means continuing what he already had so what access did he have previously?   Andy  From: Vanessa Dixon Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 6:36 AM To: Andy ; Rootsweb Subject: Re: [CHS] Cheshire records on Findmypast   Is world subscription different from worldwide, because he sent me a copy of the receipt and it says this Thank you for renewing your 12 Month World Subscription. Your payment has been processed.   * Package: 12 Month World Subscription * Amount: $ 59.99 USD You now have unlimited access to all World records on the site.   Vanessa

Hi I think your friend should contact FMP and sort it out with them. The amount he has been charged is way less than the rates quoted on the various FMP websites. One possibility is that he has a now defunct subscription with limited access. When FMP expanded outside of the UK I think that subscriptions to the likes of Ireland and Australia were separate subscriptions, maybe your friend has an old subscription that isn’t sold now but can be renewed. In theory renewing means continuing what he already had so what access did he have previously? Andy From: Vanessa Dixon Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 6:36 AM To: Andy ; Rootsweb Subject: Re: [CHS] Cheshire records on Findmypast Is world subscription different from worldwide, because he sent me a copy of the receipt and it says this Thank you for renewing your 12 Month World Subscription. Your payment has been processed. a.. Package: 12 Month World Subscription b.. Amount: $ 59.99 USD You now have unlimited access to all World records on the site. Vanessa

Is world subscription different from worldwide, because he sent me a copy of the receipt and it says this Thank you for renewing your 12 Month World Subscription. Your payment has been processed. * Package: 12 Month World Subscription * Amount: $ 59.99 USD You now have unlimited access to all World records on the site. Vanessa    All records are subject to error. Let they without typo caste tea thirst scone! View my photostream at http://www.flickr.com/photos/snapshistory/ ________________________________ From: Andy <andycandlish@ozemail.com.au> To: Vanessa Dixon <vanessal.dixon@btinternet.com>; Rootsweb <CHESHIRE@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, 13 September 2013, 12:15 Subject: Re: [CHS] Cheshire records on Findmypast Hi   The amount doesn’t sound like a Worldwide subscription, I would go into My Account and see exactly what it says for the Subscription.   Andy  From: Vanessa Dixon Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 7:25 PM To: Andy ; Rootsweb Subject: Re: [CHS] Cheshire records on Findmypast   His subscription is Worldwide, but only $59.99 which is cheap, so may be this doesn't include PR's Vanessa ________________________________ From: Andy andycandlish@ozemail.com.au Hi Findmypast offers different subscriptions in a similar way to Ancestry. findmypast.com offers 2 choices, a US data subscription or a worldwide subscription. It sounds like your friend took out the US data subscription. To access UK only data then you need to subscribe through Findmypast.co.uk. Andy -----Original Message----- From: Vanessa Dixon A friend of mine, who lives in Canada, has just taken out a subscription to Findmypast in the belief that he would be able to view the Cheshire PR's, unfortunately he finds he can't. His subscription is with FindMyPast.com, does anyone know why he can't access the Cheshire PR's? Vanessa

Hi The amount doesn’t sound like a Worldwide subscription, I would go into My Account and see exactly what it says for the Subscription. Andy From: Vanessa Dixon Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 7:25 PM To: Andy ; Rootsweb Subject: Re: [CHS] Cheshire records on Findmypast His subscription is Worldwide, but only $59.99 which is cheap, so may be this doesn't include PR's Vanessa -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Andy andycandlish@ozemail.com.au Hi Findmypast offers different subscriptions in a similar way to Ancestry. findmypast.com offers 2 choices, a US data subscription or a worldwide subscription. It sounds like your friend took out the US data subscription. To access UK only data then you need to subscribe through Findmypast.co.uk. Andy -----Original Message----- From: Vanessa Dixon A friend of mine, who lives in Canada, has just taken out a subscription to Findmypast in the belief that he would be able to view the Cheshire PR's, unfortunately he finds he can't. His subscription is with FindMyPast.com, does anyone know why he can't access the Cheshire PR's? Vanessa