Whilst researching the WATTS family in Cheshire (in the main - but reaching into Staffordshire and Lancashire at times) I've been searching the Wills and other Probate records viewable in the original on FMP. This morning I came across an occurrence which quite often happens with these records. Sometimes several wills are found in their original bundle presumably having arrived at the Record Office from whichever repository they had been kept - the Archdeaconry, a solicitor, etc - and are not listed in FMP neither under the name of the first deceased nor in their own right. Therefore they cannot be found under the usual method of FMP search. I understand why 'bundles' of documents must be kept as 'bundles' by archivists but the information that they contain could be teased out when putting it on websites. As it is, these probate records are lost to us web-searchers. I was searching for a will of Elizabeth WATTS, a widow of Great Sutton of 1618, and found a simple inventory of four items only, worth a total of 39s, plus, in the same bundle, a will of Richard WORDEN. This second document is tightly written and very detailed. It contains lots of names including those of his wife, Ales, six sons, Edward, Thomas, John, Richard, George and William, and details of his land and tenancies. It is one large document and it covers 3 pages on the FMP website. There is no documentary evidence showing the worth of RW but he was certainly worth a great deal more than 39s. FMP state on the index notes that the will is contested. But, of course, there is no will of Elizabeth WATTS - the will is RW's. Then why not say so? I then searched for the will of Richard WORDEN + variants (just in case it was recorded in its own right) and none was found. Without transcribing the whole document - early 17thC, a task and a half and only briefly skimmed - it's difficult to know whether the will was contested and by whom, or not. What the connection between Elizabeth WATTS and Richard WARDEN is/was has to remain a mystery for the present. But Richard WARDEN's will should not remain hidden IMHO. My requests to FMP have fallen on deaf ears when I have raised this issue in other such cases - each one slightly different. I wonder, has any other Lister had similar experiences with 'hidden wills/probate records' such as this? What has FMP said to you? I have never had a reply. In this case there is supporting evidence of RW's existence. Richard WARDEN = Alice BANNESTER 3 Jan 1582 St John's, Chester But in other cases I've raised there is no supporting BapMBur evidence that a person existed - there are just some probate documents wedged in someone else's bundle for no apparent reason. A real shame! Ruth