You're right Andy, pretty sure Cheadle was one of the six parishes refused permission. Someone from our Society will have a better memory than me for the names of the others. Very Best Wishes GAY Sent from my iPad On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:17, "Andy" <andycandlish@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > Hi > > The catalogue for Cheshire Archives does suggest they have the Parish > Registers. It would be worth checking whether the LDS actually digitised > them. I seem to recall somebody saying that a small number of Parish > Registers weren't digitised as either the originals were too fragile or > permission was refused. > > Andy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ruth J > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 8:33 PM > To: Cheshire ; abruce@madasafish.com > Subject: [CHS] Cheadle Parish Registers and FS / FMP > > Adrian, it is definitely not HICKSTOCK but PICKSTOCK. Compare the initial > letter with a marriage in the opposite column on 5 Septem between William > Pinnington and Jane Plant. It looks as though the transcriber of the PR to > BT first wrote Isac PICKSTOCK then realised he needed a second 'a' in > Isaac's name and overwrote it thereby crashing into the last name. The tail > of the letter 'P' can clearly be seen. The LDS transcriber has then made an > error. > > This doesn't help you find the PR though. A short emailed request to > Cheshire RO might result in you finding out what has happened to the PR - if > it is still in existence - and, if the register is with them in their > archive, an archivist may do a look-up for you too. > > Ruth > > > ------------------------------- > 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

Cheadle PR Transcripts were in final edit stage at the Cheshire Parish Register Project on 24 Nov. 2013: http://cgi.csc.liv.ac.uk/~cprdb/ In the absence of available digital images, these transcripts will be the next best thing when they eventually go on line. -Martin On 21/12/2013 10:27, TamesideFamilyHistory wrote: > You're right Andy, pretty sure Cheadle was one of the six parishes refused permission. Someone from our Society will have a better memory than me for the names of the others. > > Very Best Wishes > > GAY > > Sent from my iPad > > > On 21 Dec 2013, at 10:17, "Andy" <andycandlish@ozemail.com.au> wrote: > >> Hi >> >> The catalogue for Cheshire Archives does suggest they have the Parish >> Registers. It would be worth checking whether the LDS actually digitised >> them. I seem to recall somebody saying that a small number of Parish >> Registers weren't digitised as either the originals were too fragile or >> permission was refused. >> >> Andy >> -- "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." (Psa.37) Web: http://www.biblewitness.org

<<snipped>> pretty sure Cheadle was one of the six parishes refused permission. Someone from our Society will have a better memory than me for the names of the others. <<snipped>> Oh - six?! That passed me by completely.... Thanks for that - it is not impossible that I have hit others in the six and just imagined it was a case of that single PR being lost. So that's: - Astbury - no PRs on FMP but one can buy a CD of the PRs. BTs on FMP; - Cheadle, St Mary - no PRs on FMP it seems. PRs seem to be scheduled for Cheshire PR DB in next load. BTs on FMP; - Northenden - out of scope for FMP Cheshire Collection as not in Diocese of Chester - so may or may not be one of the six. Northenden St. Wilfred is part of the Manchester Collection on Ancestry, so nothing is lost; All suggestions about the other missing parishes welcome... There is an FS coverage table on http://goo.gl/VtpWzU This is not guaranteed to provide a full answer as it bundles all churches in a single town together - e.g. it does not split the Chester parishes. Also it is unclear if it's a PR-and-BT coverage table or a PR coverage table. As Astbury has only 2 records, this suggests it is a PR coverage table. However, there are odd chapels in there that I find it difficult to explain unless it's the BTs that are counted. But if I *swiftly* compare this table to Brett Langston's 2002 book on Cheshire PRs, then I add the following comments: - Guilden Sutton, St John, is not in the table so may be omitted from the Cheshire Collection on FMP. - Hoylake, Holy Trinity, is not in the table. - North Rode is not in the table - PRs may remain at church. This might be the missing three omissions??? But there were numerous other small churches founded recently where the PRs were still (in 2002) at the church, explaining their omission from the Cheshire Collection on FMP. I have not listed those. Anyone who can correct errors and omissions please shout! Adrian