Hi Chris, Clear now (well clearing anyway). Possibly, you are correct & George married two sisters. I would think it might be more likely that Frances/Elizabeth are the same person with two names, either of which she used at various times. What was the name of the mother in the entries above and below the Robinson ones? Is either of them Elizabeth or Frances? If so, could it be an error at that stage? Try looking for baptisms for Elizabeth/Frances with the parents given & see if that helps. Ruling out two marriages might help too. It looks as though your George travelled around a good deal. Finding possible marriages (or not) and burials (or not) for both Frances Cocker and Elizabeth Cocker might also be a useful search to try. Regards Lesley On 21/07/2014 14:31, Chris Bowden wrote: > > Hi Lesley, I think I have managed to confuse you and myself. Forget > about the the entry for Samuel at Prestbury as this not one of mine. > The image attached is for Sutton Wesleyan. There are two consecutive > entries on this image, one for Charles Robinson the next for John > Robinson, both are late baptisms. I have found a matching baptism for > Charles in 1817 at All Saints Loughborough and for John in the 1841 > census for Elizabeth Street Prestbury/Macclesfield confirms the presence > of John with George and Frances. > Refering back to the two consecutive entries in the Sutton Wesleyan > (attached). Here is where we have the mystery. Both the entries are > late, as in 1837 and both relate to births in 1817 and 1821. Both show > the father as George a cordwainer of Macclesfield but one shows his wife > as FRANCES the other as ELIZABETH. Now if you look at the details of his > wife's parents they are both shown as William and Sarah Cocker. So did > George marry his wife's sister or where there two Georges. I discount a > register error as the entries are consecutive by the same minister and > the registers are precise in detail. > Kind regards > Chris Bowden > > On 21/07/2014 13:45, Lesley Baxendale wrote: >> Hi Chris, >> >> The image you sent for John Robinson is definitely non-conformist, >> not St Peter's Prestbury. It's got a lot of detail and the baptisms >> are very late, so it could be that they were converts from Anglican. >> It therefore follows that you might find baptisms for them nearer to >> their dates of birth in the Anglican church. They could also be first >> timers who were never baptised at birth and are adopting >> non-conformism later along with the rest of their families. Have you >> tried looking late baptisms for George and Hannah around this date?. >> >> The image for the non-conformist baptism for Samuel Robinson on FMP is >> definitely St Peter, Prestbury. Probably either indexed incorrectly, >> or the wrong image. As the details on the entry match the search >> criteria, I would suggest it's incorrect indexing. Worth reporting it >> to FMP - they will sort it out or at least give you an explanation. >> You often find double entries where a child has been baptised at a >> chapelry rather than the mother church - especially with BT's, but >> I've not come across one for a non-conformist baptism before. >> >> I couldn't find the baptisms on FMP for the image you sent. Did you >> keep a copy of the transcription? The top of the page in the image >> might be helpful too. >> >> Regards >> >> Lesley >> >> On 21/07/2014 10:43, Chris Bowden wrote: >>> Hi Lesley, I am still on the Robinson trail. I was asking for more info >>> on Samuel Robinson to George and Ann 11 Dec 1825 listed as at Sunderland >>> Street Wesleyan. I have now found this on FMP but the image is a page >>> from Prestbury PR. All other info as per index and as George was a silk >>> weaver I have now crossed him off my list. >>> I wonder of you could look at the two baptism images from FMP for Sutton >>> Wesleyan. Something is not right here, what do you think? >>> kind regards >>> Chris Bowden >>> On 05/06/2014 22:38, Lesley Baxendale wrote: >>>> Hi Chris, >>>> >>>> Yes, it's from Ancestry. Manchester Cathedral records aren't held by >>>> FMP, but most Cheshire records are, along with the original images. It >>>> can be very hit and miss as to what you will find where. >>>> >>>> At the moment, FMP is definitely the best for Cheshire and Ancestry is >>>> pretty good with Manchester. >>>> >>>> I have also found that Familysearch has some images available on their >>>> own site without having to go to a pay per view site. However, their >>>> viewer doesn't seem to be working at present. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Lesley >>>> >>>> On 05/06/2014 17:27, Chris Bowden wrote: >>>>> Hi Lesley, thanks for the image. Are these from ancestry? I did >>>>> take up >>>>> your advice and took a months subscription to FMP but cannot get such >>>>> images. >>>>> regards >>>>> Chris Bowden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 05/06/2014 15:38, Lesley Baxendale wrote: >>>>>> Hi Chris, >>>>>> >>>>>> Image attached. Sarah's father, George, is given as a shoemaker, so >>>>>> it looks as though you might be on the right trail. >>>>>> >>>>>> No luck with finding streets on maps. Ask on the list - I'm sure >>>>>> someone will find them for you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Lesley >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05/06/2014 14:41, Chris Bowden wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Lesley, I am still slogging on with my Robinson and Thomas >>>>>>> line. I >>>>>>> have had no luck, despite clues, that the family were passing >>>>>>> through >>>>>>> Macclesfield in the 1820's. So now I'm in Manchester. In 1841 Sarah >>>>>>> Robinson (born 1821 at Sandbach, d. of George and Hannah Robinson) >>>>>>> married James Thomas at the Cathedral. Do you have an image? Her >>>>>>> address >>>>>>> at the time was Heaton Street Ardwick and although found on the >>>>>>> census, >>>>>>> I cannot find on any map. Could you help me locate Heaton Street >>>>>>> and if >>>>>>> possible an image of the marriage cert. >>>>>>> regards >>>>>>> Chris Bowden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >>>> Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3955/7626 - Release Date: >>>> 06/05/14 >>> >> >> >> ----- >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 2014.0.4716 / Virus Database: 3986/7891 - Release Date: 07/21/14 >> >> >