I am new to this list and Iam researchinga famiy in Australia for an elderly friend. The information we have so far is:- Sarah RYLANCE m (before 1834) Joseph SCHOLES who was baptised in Bury, Lancashire. Nores on their Immigration records of their arrival in Sydney is that she came from Cheshire and their three sons were from Cheshire although I have found their baptisms in Manchester, St Mary, Bury and Colleriate Manchester. It would seem that the name RYLANCE with various spellings is a name from Cheshire. Does any one have any information about this name or families. Jenny C

<<snipped>> Hi - does anyone know if there are any marriage licences still in existance in Cheshire? Where would be the most likely place be to look? <<snipped>> Look in FamilySearch, they have a dataset called "England, Cheshire, Marriage Bonds and Allegations, 1606-1900". This is only an index, of course. The images are on FindMyPast, in with the marriages. I just checked and despite any rumours to the contrary, I found the one I looked for! For reasons that have, I *suspect* (but *cannot* prove), everything to do with the indexing carried out by FamilySearch, it is sometimes not possible to find both bond and allegation, though it's inconsistent which is found. Also, some of the index references do not point to bond or allegation, but to the entry in what I think is called the Act Book - basically, a list of licences issued. I have to say that my hit rate of finding them is good, with only a handful missing - it may depend on which shelf the stuff was stored on when the clerk wanted some scrap paper.... Adrian B

You will be extremely lucky to find a Licence but you could find the associated bond and allegation at Cheshire RO. Ruth in Hampshire Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Apr 2014, at 11:01, sandra.bev@talktalk.net wrote: > > > > Hi - does anyone know if there are any marriage licences still in existance in Cheshire? > > Where would be the most likely place be to look? > > Thanks > Sandra > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

The marriage licence bonds do exist, but by no means all of them have survived! Unless someone does a PhD on their survival rate, we'd all be guessing, but I recently had a list of several dozen I needed to check for transcription of registers, and found less than 10%. I suspect, and only suspect, that earlier ones may have a better survival rate (I was searching 1813-37). The only time I have seen an extant licence was one folded into a parish register I was working on! It was for a far more modern period than the register was!!! Jacqui ________________________________________ From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com <cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com> on behalf of Ruth <orange.wasps@live.co.uk> Sent: 26 April 2014 11:43 To: sandra.bev@talktalk.net Cc: CHESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CHS] Marriage Licence You will be extremely lucky to find a Licence but you could find the associated bond and allegation at Cheshire RO. Ruth in Hampshire Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Apr 2014, at 11:01, sandra.bev@talktalk.net wrote: > > > > Hi - does anyone know if there are any marriage licences still in existance in Cheshire? > > Where would be the most likely place be to look? > > Thanks > Sandra > > ------------------------------- > 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 - does anyone know if there are any marriage licences still in existance in Cheshire? Where would be the most likely place be to look? Thanks Sandra

If you are happy with what FMP are giving us for our money now, then no need to do anything, but if not, then "Can't Find My Past" is the place to air your grievances and they will take them to FMP on our behalf. In the meantime FMP are deleting all negative comments on their Facebook page, so are obviously feeling the heat. On 25 April 2014 18:55, carole williams <carolewill28@hotmail.com> wrote: > Surely they know things aren't too good for us at the moment.... They > read FB and their emails.... They've posted a message on FMP to this > effect and asked for us to send in our specific searching problems so they > can capture all aspects... Maybe our best interests are served doing just > that rather than moaning... They've changed things with the best intentions > after all. > > Sent from my iPad > > On 25 Apr 2014, at 00:53, "thalauafu" <dmlfamilyhistory@gmail.com> wrote: > > > For all of you out there who dislike the new format of FMP as much as I > do, > > please may I suggest you join the Facebook group at "Can't Find My Past" > > who need support and numbers to approach FMP regarding making things > right > > again. > > > > ------------------------------- > > 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 found the link to the video on the FMP homepage. <<snipped>> There also a link on http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/ - 2nd item in Latest Updates. Also there is a link to the blog about it, which is on http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/blog/magazine-team/office-meeting -findmypast That is also well worth reading as it is more Sarah Williams' than FMP. Adrian B

I found the link to the video on the FMP homepage. Scroll down the page, under the row of links, there is a column for Family History News. It's the top item. Lesley Baxendale Colwyn Bay On 25/04/2014 13:34, Martin Briscoe wrote: > The What's New page does not appear to have been updated since last week. > > The video is here > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z2iUZb6P2s > > It does not inspire a lot of confidence. > > > > Martin Briscoe > Fort William > martin@mbriscoe.me.uk > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of TamesideFamilyHistory > Sent: 25 April 2014 12:58 > To: abruce@madasafish.com > Cc: <CHESHIRE@rootsweb.com> > Subject: Re: [CHS] Find My Past new format > > Please visit the FMP home page and go to what's new. There is a video posted > today of an interview between Sarah from WDYTYA magazine and FMP. > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

The What's New page does not appear to have been updated since last week. The video is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z2iUZb6P2s It does not inspire a lot of confidence. Martin Briscoe Fort William martin@mbriscoe.me.uk -----Original Message----- From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of TamesideFamilyHistory Sent: 25 April 2014 12:58 To: abruce@madasafish.com Cc: <CHESHIRE@rootsweb.com> Subject: Re: [CHS] Find My Past new format Please visit the FMP home page and go to what's new. There is a video posted today of an interview between Sarah from WDYTYA magazine and FMP.

Please visit the FMP home page and go to what's new. There is a video posted today of an interview between Sarah from WDYTYA magazine and FMP. Very Best Wishes GAY Sent from my iPad On 25 Apr 2014, at 11:05, "Adrian Bruce" <abruce@madasafish.com> wrote: > <<snipped>> > may I suggest you join the Facebook group at "Can't Find My Past" > who need support and numbers to approach FMP regarding making things right > again. > <<snipped>> > > "Can'tFMP" are simply a group of people who are having a moan. The > therapeutic nature of that is not to be dismissed, not least in persuading > people that - it's not just me or you who have the problem. However, they > have no traction with FMP. Far more useful is the work done by > WhoDoYouThinkYouAre magazine - don't know if any other magazine has been > doing similar. > > FMP also have a feedback site and while it's not ideal, it is, as far as I > know, the best place to post SPECIFIC instances of failures and issues. > > Non-specific comments are unlikely to be understood by the IT team reading > them. > > Purely negative comments are as likely to be successful as those imploring > Ancestry to return to Old Search. > > Adrian B > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CHESHIRE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<snipped>> may I suggest you join the Facebook group at "Can't Find My Past" who need support and numbers to approach FMP regarding making things right again. <<snipped>> "Can'tFMP" are simply a group of people who are having a moan. The therapeutic nature of that is not to be dismissed, not least in persuading people that - it's not just me or you who have the problem. However, they have no traction with FMP. Far more useful is the work done by WhoDoYouThinkYouAre magazine - don't know if any other magazine has been doing similar. FMP also have a feedback site and while it's not ideal, it is, as far as I know, the best place to post SPECIFIC instances of failures and issues. Non-specific comments are unlikely to be understood by the IT team reading them. Purely negative comments are as likely to be successful as those imploring Ancestry to return to Old Search. Adrian B

Surely they know things aren't too good for us at the moment.... They read FB and their emails.... They've posted a message on FMP to this effect and asked for us to send in our specific searching problems so they can capture all aspects... Maybe our best interests are served doing just that rather than moaning... They've changed things with the best intentions after all. Sent from my iPad On 25 Apr 2014, at 00:53, "thalauafu" <dmlfamilyhistory@gmail.com> wrote: > For all of you out there who dislike the new format of FMP as much as I do, > please may I suggest you join the Facebook group at "Can't Find My Past" > who need support and numbers to approach FMP regarding making things right > again. > > ------------------------------- > 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

For all of you out there who dislike the new format of FMP as much as I do, please may I suggest you join the Facebook group at "Can't Find My Past" who need support and numbers to approach FMP regarding making things right again.

Thanks, Lesley. I think you have answered the question! Cheers, Lyn PS I have had a lot of fun over the last 40 years of doing my One Name Study and met a lot of really nice people.

<<snipped>> As I experiment, I am finding records I didn't find using the old version, so perseverance pays off <<snipped>> Interesting - can't say I've noticed that, but one new facility I've found very useful is that if you make your enquiry from the right place, it is possible to see all of the BMDs together - this provides strong indications where there are children who died shortly after baptism, speeding up their identification. I also find it useful to see baptisms interwoven with civil registrations of births as the lack of a registration is a strong indicator of a late baptism. However, there are people for whom any mixing is anathema and who don't see any advantage in cross-comparisons. What must be frustrating for the programmers is when they get complaints with no specifics, such as "X doesn't work", then they run examples of their own and X does work. I have a feeling that the new system is more susceptible to dodgy data than the previous. For instance, I'm now looking at a list of baptisms - some have the parish shown under "Location", some just say "Cheshire". Looking at the so-called transcripts (i.e. the indexes), the placename data varies between them - I always said the LDS hadn't indexed consistently - and it looks like some combinations work, but others just show the county. The only way the programmers will sort it out, is if people give specifics so they can see why the data on a specific record doesn't work. But no matter how hard I try, I can find nothing positive to say about FMP's publicity people... Adrian B

Hi Brian, You're right - it is a stupid question - of sorts. Why does anybody do anything? Many one namers got started because they hit a brick wall with their own family. Doing a one name study, especially on an unusual or uncommon name can open lots of research doors & very often lead you to the ancestors you couldn't find in the first place. Even if it doesn't, it's great fun and very interesting. After all, most of us do family history because we like doing it, not just for a long list of names taking us back to Adam. Ultimately, a one name study, properly researched, sourced and published, will be a great asset to the family history community as a whole and will be just one more tool for people to use in their own research if their name of interest happens to be included in one of these studies. Regards Lesley Baxendale Colwyn Bay (who won't be undertaking any one name studies just yet - most of my family names are far too common!) On 21/04/2014 16:21, Brian J Densmore wrote: >> Geneanet is a website which provides references to names in all sorts >> of published sources, all over the world. I found 542 instances of my >> One Name Study Name HUNTINGFORD. >> It is especially useful for One Namers. You can access the index for >> free but if you wanted to see the actual item you would have to pay. >> Regards, Lyn > > Stupid question day. > > Why do one name studies? > > Thanks, > > Brian "Gump"* Densmore > > > * We have a love-hate thing with Forrest Gump. I love it and my wife Hates > it. Did I just step in it? It happens. Lol. > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 >

Although counter intuitive, I am beginning to find my way around FMP. As I experiment, I am finding records I didn't find using the old version, so perseverance pays off. Could do with a couple of tutorials though - might prepare some over the next few weeks. Very Best Wishes GAY Sent from my iPad On 21 Apr 2014, at 16:46, "Martin Briscoe" <martin@mbriscoe.me.uk> wrote: > I don't think any 'ultra-premium' rate gives you any advantages on Ancestry > searches. > > I hate New Search but I have been using more often recently because I just > find CantFindMyPast so frustrating since they similarly 'improved' it. > > I think the management of both just listened to supposed web experts rather > than people with any actual experience of family history. > > I am wondering whether CantFindMyPast will survive, they have lost many > customers and many more are just waiting for their subscription period to > end. > > > > Martin Briscoe > Fort William > martin@mbriscoe.me.uk > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] > On Behalf Of Brian J Densmore > Sent: 21 April 2014 16:31 > To: Ed Spann > Cc: cheshire@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [CHS] New Version of Find My Past > > Depends on your definition of Brilliant. I've always felt it was Intentional > on Ancestry's part, to make searching as laborious and painful as they > could, just in case you aren't paying an ultra-premium rate. > > By which definition, I say they've succeeded with unusual Brilliance. > > Most times, I'd rather see the dentist than begin an Ancestry query. I keep > a well stocked Single Malt collection, just for doing Ancestry searches. > > Sorry, to hear that FMP has had a similar stroke of genius. > > P.S. I like trawling through the old hard copy records. I usually find what > I'm looking for, if I am properly prepared before going. > > > > ------------------------------- > 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 don't think any 'ultra-premium' rate gives you any advantages on Ancestry searches. I hate New Search but I have been using more often recently because I just find CantFindMyPast so frustrating since they similarly 'improved' it. I think the management of both just listened to supposed web experts rather than people with any actual experience of family history. I am wondering whether CantFindMyPast will survive, they have lost many customers and many more are just waiting for their subscription period to end. Martin Briscoe Fort William martin@mbriscoe.me.uk -----Original Message----- From: cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:cheshire-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Brian J Densmore Sent: 21 April 2014 16:31 To: Ed Spann Cc: cheshire@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [CHS] New Version of Find My Past Depends on your definition of Brilliant. I've always felt it was Intentional on Ancestry's part, to make searching as laborious and painful as they could, just in case you aren't paying an ultra-premium rate. By which definition, I say they've succeeded with unusual Brilliance. Most times, I'd rather see the dentist than begin an Ancestry query. I keep a well stocked Single Malt collection, just for doing Ancestry searches. Sorry, to hear that FMP has had a similar stroke of genius. P.S. I like trawling through the old hard copy records. I usually find what I'm looking for, if I am properly prepared before going.

> I don't think any 'ultra-premium' rate gives you any advantages on > Ancestry > searches. I see my sarcasm broadcast engine seems to have broken down again, and unsuspecting readers have been subjected to my stealth-mode sarcasm. I apologize for this. But we all know how touchy today's technology can be. Here and gone at the speed of the Internet. Which is pretty darn fast for those lucky folks in the UK, and not so great for us poor slobs in the USA (unless you are one of those lucky enough to have Google Fiber. I can almost smell the fiber from my house a few scant miles outside it's local distribution. I may have to sell my house and soul to move inside that privileged circle.). Brian

Depends on your definition of Brilliant. I've always felt it was Intentional on Ancestry's part, to make searching as laborious and painful as they could, just in case you aren't paying an ultra-premium rate. By which definition, I say they've succeeded with unusual Brilliance. Most times, I'd rather see the dentist than begin an Ancestry query. I keep a well stocked Single Malt collection, just for doing Ancestry searches. Sorry, to hear that FMP has had a similar stroke of genius. P.S. I like trawling through the old hard copy records. I usually find what I'm looking for, if I am properly prepared before going. > Not that Ancestry is that brilliant - you can get deaths/marriages when > you ask for only births. The thing is you just have to experiment, all in > all they are both better than having to travel miles and trawl through > record books for hours and leave with nothing !!! or we're they the good > days ? :-) :-) >