A welcome piece of news, Brett. A couple of oddities - one welcome, the other less so. Based on a statistical sample of two schools, FMP have filmed and digitised the front pages of the school registers - so provided the school themselves wrote their own name somewhere on the cover or in the first few pages, we have independent confirmation of the school and book details if you don't happen to believe the index. This is excellent news - I call it "respecting the source". Less welcome - I am having difficulty in accessing some of the images for the pages of Crewe, Bedford St (Girls' Department). I can get the index but the image just sits there with the spinning wheel turning (a.k.a. the donut of death) and no image appearing. However if you use the left or right arrow and then promptly use the right or left arrow to get back to where you were, voila - the image of the page appears. So - no harm done if you remember the trick. (I have reported an inability to access the image - before I discovered the "there and back again" trick). I'm not sure whether it has anything to do with it or not but I remember failing to find the Bedford St Girls stuff on the microfilm at Chester RO. Yet there it is.... Confused? You will be... Adrian B On 22/09/2014 15:37, Brett Langston via wrote: > [Forwarded on behalf of the Cheshire Record Office] > > Cheshire School Admission Registers 1870-1914 >

These records are excellent. I was so pleased (and surprised as didn't expect to find them) when I found the records for my gran and her brother and sister in Bramhall. The detail with another address I wasn't aware of was great. I'd had verbal memories years ago from my gran before I was interested in family history (as a girl) but seeing the actual records was such a thrill. Thank you to Brett for making these records available along with the Cheshire Record Office and FMP. Val Taylor On 22 September 2014 15:37, Brett Langston via <cheshire@rootsweb.com> wrote: > [Forwarded on behalf of the Cheshire Record Office] > > Cheshire School Admission Registers 1870-1914 > > Cheshire Archives and Local Studies is part of a consortium of English > and Welsh archives who have been working with Find My Past to digitise, > index and publish over 2.5 million records from over 1500 schools. The > records can now be found at www.findmypast.co.uk/school-registers. > > They include 250,000 Cheshire records from the archives of over 150 > schools now held at the Cheshire Record Office, covering much of > historic Cheshire, Widnes and Warrington. > > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

My interpretations in [] And he further made oath that the consent of Ellen Whittaker Mother of the said Mary Whittaker [?her?] father being dead and [she living her] Guardian of her [person lawfully ??appointed??] and her mother being [??] hath been [obtained] to this marriage So, Ellen is the mother, as you realise. Her father is dead and her mother is living. Her mother is her lawfully appointed guardian (I doubt this means that something legal has been done - it probably simply means that her mother is now, by default, her guardian, rather than her father.) Still a couple of words I'm unclear of. It displays the usual total lack of punctuation. Adrian On 22/09/2014 15:46, Christine Benson via wrote: > Hi All, > > I am trying to read a marriage licence on Findmypast. It is for Mary > WHITTAKER to Joseph BLACKSHAW on 26 Dec 1873 in Gawsworth. It says, hand > written, just after half way down :- > And he further made oath that the consent of Ellen Whittaker Mother of the > said Mary Whittaker father being dead and ?? ?? ?? Guardian of her ?? ?? ?? > and her mother being ?? hath been ?? to this marriage >

Just a note to say I have their marriage and family and I know there is a tree on Ancestry. I am specifically enquiring about the marriage licence. Christine -----Original Message----- From: Christine Benson via Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 3:46 PM To: CHESHIRE mailing list Subject: [CHS] Mary WHITTAKER to Joseph BLACKSHAW marriage licence 1873 Hi All, I am trying to read a marriage licence on Findmypast. It is for Mary WHITTAKER to Joseph BLACKSHAW on 26 Dec 1873 in Gawsworth. It says, hand written, just after half way down :- And he further made oath that the consent of Ellen Whittaker Mother of the said Mary Whittaker father being dead and ?? ?? ?? Guardian of her ?? ?? ?? and her mother being ?? hath been ?? to this marriage Some of these words I cannot read at all and some I think I can read but they make no sense so I have possibly misread them. (Ellen is the mother and the father is dead) Any help gratefully received Christine

Hi All, I am trying to read a marriage licence on Findmypast. It is for Mary WHITTAKER to Joseph BLACKSHAW on 26 Dec 1873 in Gawsworth. It says, hand written, just after half way down :- And he further made oath that the consent of Ellen Whittaker Mother of the said Mary Whittaker father being dead and ?? ?? ?? Guardian of her ?? ?? ?? and her mother being ?? hath been ?? to this marriage Some of these words I cannot read at all and some I think I can read but they make no sense so I have possibly misread them. (Ellen is the mother and the father is dead) Any help gratefully received Christine

[Forwarded on behalf of the Cheshire Record Office] Cheshire School Admission Registers 1870-1914 Cheshire Archives and Local Studies is part of a consortium of English and Welsh archives who have been working with Find My Past to digitise, index and publish over 2.5 million records from over 1500 schools. The records can now be found at www.findmypast.co.uk/school-registers. They include 250,000 Cheshire records from the archives of over 150 schools now held at the Cheshire Record Office, covering much of historic Cheshire, Widnes and Warrington.

Could you be looking for Samuel MALKIN who married Julia Minerva Raymond? The dates of birth and death match. Dot On Sunday, September 21, 2014 3:07 AM, "cheshire-request@rootsweb.com" <cheshire-request@rootsweb.com> wrote: Today's Topics: 1. Re: WW1 photo of St John's Ambulance in Macclesfield (Ann Harris) 2. SAMUEL RAYMOND BORN 10 JANUARY 1834 NEWBOLD, ASTBURY, CHESHIRE, ENGLAND DIED 10 MARCH 1906 NORWALK, CONNECTICUT, USA (Sherrin A. Smith) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 14:29:39 +0100 From: "Ann Harris" <a.rossi@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: [CHS] WW1 photo of St John's Ambulance in Macclesfield To: "Jenni" <jrgay@iprimus.com.au>, "Cheshire List" <CHESHIRE@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <001b01cfd4d6$ef6aafb0$0200a8c0@user86a840f83d> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Dear Jenni Please would you send me your email address as I think the Macclesfield Group of FHSC would be interested in your photo, as they are researching people in WW1 from Macclesfield. Ann ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:59:33 -0400 From: "Sherrin A. Smith" <sas56chevy@aol.com> Subject: [CHS] SAMUEL RAYMOND BORN 10 JANUARY 1834 NEWBOLD, ASTBURY, CHESHIRE, ENGLAND DIED 10 MARCH 1906 NORWALK, CONNECTICUT, USA To: "'Cheshire List'" <cheshire@rootsweb.com> Message-ID: <059D0CD204BB4A9DAC33D15D69FE082D@56ChevyROADIE> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Looking for any information on Samuel Raymond and family of wife, Julia Minerva Raymond 1839-1901. Thank you, Sherrin Smith Carr-Cobb-Denton-Hoyt-Hyatt-Malkin- Raymond-Rainwater-Sapp-Smith ------------------------------ To contact the CHESHIRE list administrator, send an email to CHESHIRE-admin@rootsweb.com. To post a message to the CHESHIRE mailing list, send an email to CHESHIRE@rootsweb.com. __________________________________________________________ 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 email with no additional text. End of CHESHIRE Digest, Vol 9, Issue 188 ****************************************

Looking for any information on Samuel Raymond and family of wife, Julia Minerva Raymond 1839-1901. Thank you, Sherrin Smith Carr-Cobb-Denton-Hoyt-Hyatt-Malkin- Raymond-Rainwater-Sapp-Smith

Dear Jenni Please would you send me your email address as I think the Macclesfield Group of FHSC would be interested in your photo, as they are researching people in WW1 from Macclesfield. Ann

I have 2 photos of my grandfather in a uniform probably around WW1 in Macclesfield. I understand he was involved in the St John's Ambulance instead of enlisting (he was a silk dyer so perhaps he wasn't allowed to enlist or as a Salvationist perhaps they didn't fight?). On closer inspection, I'm pretty sure my father as a young boy is also in there. Both photos comprise a small number of men, women and boys in front of a stone building. Not everyone is in a uniform but some of the nurses appear to have armbands with the St John's Ambulance insignia on it. . The reason I think it is taken in WW1 (apart from the story handed down from my father) is that there appears to be an Army officer in the centre of each photo. If you can think of any organisation, who might be interested in a copy of the photograph, please let me know. Or if you have any other info that may be interesting, I'd love to hear about it. I have written today to St John's in London offering copies for their archives. Cheers Jenni --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

The following updates for CheshireBMD have just been announced: ---------- Message from Ian Hartas, Cheshire. Hi, Cheshire BMD has been updated to add: Births: 519 for Birkenhead North, registers at Wirral (1932-1937) 503 for East Wirral, registers at Wirral (1938-1938) 519 for Wallasey, registers at Wirral (1942-1943) 1,529 for West Wirral, registers at Wirral (1939-1941) Many thanks to Helen Gill and colleagues for these. ---------- Forwarded by: Bob Kirk Web address: http://kirksoft.co.uk/ Sent from my iPad

I'd agree with both of you - if that's possible! I think a relatively small number of families ignored registration, but those that ignored it, did so consistently, and can therefore represent a larger slice of the pie than one might expect. My GGrandparents did not register the births of any of their children, which has created some difficulty for me. I know of the existence of five of them only through their burial records, but their burials weren't registered either. Fortunately for me, they did undergo a formal marriage, as did all their surviving children, so I have been able to piece most of it together. The family were itinerant boatmen, living on the barge, and thus slipped under the radar. My Grandfather (on the other side of the family tree) was also not registered at birth (he was older than one might expect, so falls in the pre 1874 timeslot.) His three eldest siblings were registered, but the other seven children in the family were not. The difference was that the family had joined a non conformist church in the interim. I think where folk were C of E and living in a stable household, that registration became just an add on to baptism, but where these criteria were not met, there are likely gaps in the records. Angela ----- Original Message ----- From: <cheshire-request@rootsweb.com> To: <cheshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 8:00 AM Subject: CHESHIRE Digest, Vol 9, Issue 185 > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: JUDSONS'S DEATHS (Adrian Bruce) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 11:00:41 +0100 > From: Adrian Bruce <abruce@madasafish.com> > Subject: Re: [CHS] JUDSONS'S DEATHS > To: joy.langdon@btinternet.com > Cc: CHESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com > Message-ID: <54195BC9.2060101@madasafish.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Joy - thanks for clarifying the date when burials had to have a > certificate first - that would explain my feeling that I had examples > that broke the supposed rule. > > Depending on what you meant by "possibly a third of these early > registrations are missing" we may have to disagree on that. The 1874 Act > was a sensible step, placing the onus of registration on the people who > knew. However, if it was fixing a material problem, one would expect the > numbers of registrations to get a boost. According to the serious > studies of registration (whose name I have forgotten!), that simply > doesn't happen - i.e. the system was already working well before 1874. > > Certainly in the first couple of years there were issues - one Poor Law > Union actually refused to appoint a Registrar, reckoning it an > unwarranted breach of privacy. But by and large, it seems to settle down > quite quickly. I have indeed seen suggestions of 1/3 of births missing > in relation to areas like Liverpool later on the in 19th century but I > question how those figures were arrived at when compared to the > conclusions from serious histories. > > Adrian > > On 16/09/2014 21:11, Joy Langdon wrote: >> ... There was no penalty for failing to register a birth or death and it >> is believed that possibly a third of these early registrations are >> missing. >> ... >> It wasn't until 1926 that a registrar's certificate or coroner's order >> had to be produced before a burial could take place. >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > To contact the CHESHIRE list administrator, send an email to > CHESHIRE-admin@rootsweb.com. > > To post a message to the CHESHIRE mailing list, send an email to > CHESHIRE@rootsweb.com. > > __________________________________________________________ > 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 > email with no additional text. > > > End of CHESHIRE Digest, Vol 9, Issue 185 > **************************************** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.932 / Virus Database: 4015.1.1/7732 - Release Date: 09/18/14 02:01:00

Joy - thanks for clarifying the date when burials had to have a certificate first - that would explain my feeling that I had examples that broke the supposed rule. Depending on what you meant by "possibly a third of these early registrations are missing" we may have to disagree on that. The 1874 Act was a sensible step, placing the onus of registration on the people who knew. However, if it was fixing a material problem, one would expect the numbers of registrations to get a boost. According to the serious studies of registration (whose name I have forgotten!), that simply doesn't happen - i.e. the system was already working well before 1874. Certainly in the first couple of years there were issues - one Poor Law Union actually refused to appoint a Registrar, reckoning it an unwarranted breach of privacy. But by and large, it seems to settle down quite quickly. I have indeed seen suggestions of 1/3 of births missing in relation to areas like Liverpool later on the in 19th century but I question how those figures were arrived at when compared to the conclusions from serious histories. Adrian On 16/09/2014 21:11, Joy Langdon wrote: > ... There was no penalty for failing to register a birth or death and it is believed that possibly a third of these early registrations are missing. > ... > It wasn't until 1926 that a registrar's certificate or coroner's order had to be produced before a burial could take place. >

>From 1837 until 1874 it was the responsibility of the Registrar to obtain the information and he was paid by his success. There was no penalty for failing to register a birth or death and it is believed that possibly a third of these early registrations are missing. The 1874 Births and Deaths Registration Act made registration compulsory and the onus of registering a birth passed to the parents with a £2 fine if the fine was not registered within 42 days. The responsibility for reporting a death was placed on a relative of the deceased. The registration had to be supported by a certificate signed by a doctor and the death had to be registered within 5 days. It wasn't until 1926 that a registrar's certificate or coroner's order had to be produced before a burial could take place. Of course, the Judsons could have died before Civil Registration commenced in July 1837. Joy ----Original message---- >From : cheshire@rootsweb.com Date : 16/09/2014 - 20:38 (GMTST) To : CHESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com Subject : Re: [CHS] JUDSONS'S DEATHS Hmmm - it's not *supposed* to happen as you are supposed to provide a certificate to the undertaker, etc., and without that, the priest is not supposed to bury someone. Having said that I have an idea that I have examples where the registration date is after the burial. Adrian On 16/09/2014 15:46, Don Tomkinson via wrote: > ... Is it possible that some deaths would escape registration, I wonder? > ... > > ------------------------------- 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

Hmmm - it's not *supposed* to happen as you are supposed to provide a certificate to the undertaker, etc., and without that, the priest is not supposed to bury someone. Having said that I have an idea that I have examples where the registration date is after the burial. Adrian On 16/09/2014 15:46, Don Tomkinson via wrote: > ... Is it possible that some deaths would escape registration, I wonder? > ... > >

The following updates for CheshireBMD have just been announced: ----------- Hi, Cheshire BMD has been updated to add: Marriages: 328 for Stockport, St Saviour, registers at Stockport (1983-2013) Many thanks to Peter Greenwood and colleagues for these. ----------- Forwarded by: Bob Kirk Web address: http://kirksoft.co.uk/ Sent from my iPad

My 3xg.grandparents JOHN JUDSON, born 1795, and HANNAH née SUTTON, born 1795, of Nantwich do not appear in the 1841 census. The last record I can find of them was in 1834 when their daughter MARY ANN died and they seem to be alive. In 1841 their sons HENRY, born 1819, and JOHN, born 1828, were lodgers in Wall Lane, Nantwich, with WILLIAM FARMER. I can find no record of the deaths of my 3xg.parents and wonder if they died in the typhus epidemic of 1840. There were 56 cases of typhoid in the workhouse at the time and some deaths were recorded in the PR. Is it possible that some deaths would escape registration, I wonder? I would be glad of comments. DON TOMKINSON

Hi Christine Same names - different spellings. I know your pain - and don't envy you. At that time, wills were still more than likely to have been written on people's deathbeds. This Josiah's will was written only two weeks before he died, and if he is the Josiah that was born in 1763 he was about 58 at death - not old but obviously very ill. I was reminded the other day that just because a person 'makes their mark' rather than sign doesn't necessarily mean that they were unable to sign, but are merely doing as they were told to do by the vicar/curate/lawyer/whichever official or witness. Josiah's Xs are reasonably strong ones - I've seen wobblier! So it's difficult to draw solid conclusions from them. It's a fair bet that all the Gawsworth WHITTAKERs (whatever spelling) are connected. This Josiah is a man of some status - mill owner, etc. If he is the member of the WHITTAKER family 'with the money' it's probable that he would be, or be seen to be, the 'protector' of less fortunate members. This argument would lend weight to the WHITTAKER and SNELSON 'nephews and nieces' inclusion in the will. But like you, I think he would have specified the relationships - although a lot depends on his condition at the time of writing and how well the person who is doing the actual writing knows the man and his family. A lot of considerations! Have you checked Google Books, Trade Directories and Newspapers to see if there's any further info available? Again - just thoughts. Ruth

The following updates have just been announced for CheshireBMD: ----------- Message from Ian Hartas, Cheshire. Cheshire BMD has been updated to add: Births: 502 for Urmston, registers at Trafford (1946-1952) 1,007 for Altrincham, registers at Trafford (1956-1957) 501 for Sale, registers at Trafford (1953-1960) Marriages: 332 for Stockport, St Thomas, registers at Stockport (1960-2014) 12 for Stockport, United Reformed Church (Edgeley Road), registers at Stockport (2001-2004) 28 for Stockport, Methodist Church (Dialstone Lane), registers at Stockport (1998-2009) 21 for Stockport, Our Lady & Apostles RC Church (Shaw Heath), registers at Stockport (2010-2011) 21 for Stockport, Christadelphian Meeting Room (Old Road), registers at Stockport (1972-2001) ----------- Forwarded by: Bob Kirk Web address: http://kirksoft.co.uk/ Sent from my iPad

Thanks Ruth. Thoughts about “adoption” of nephew and nieces had crossed my mind although Josiah does call them his children. His wife’s maiden name was SNELSON, unless there was a prior marriage I haven’t discovered, so unlikely that Phebe was hers. But an illegitimate child of Josiah’s whose mother died is a possibility. That may never be provable but I might rule nieces and nephew in or out as I track down more of this line. But it will take a while. Just got your next mail, no need to apologise for adding more work! I must track down that signature as churchwarden, thanks for that. Christine From: Ruth Genda Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 12:55 PM To: cheshire@rootsweb.com ; christinebenson313@btinternet.com Subject: Josiah WHITTAKER Will 1821 All from Gawsworth registers: There is a Phebe LEA born illegitimately and baptised on 30 Nov 1805. A possibility perhaps? Haven’t gone any further with this. Or she could be a niece – there was a Phoebe WHITTAKERS baptised 28 April 1782 (born 23 March 1782) d/o George and Elizabeth W. Was she taken into the family fold on death of George or Elizabeth perhaps – or for any other reason? Ruth