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

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. > >