G'day Lesley, Thanks for your comments which should also help many new researchers. By the time you read this, you should have received my earlier reply to Andy and hopefully understand where I am coming from. I must take your first para as a definite answer to the Yate query. I have researched many of the area's CROSLANDs, WHITEHEADs and other lines and have never come across another appearance of Yate other than variations of Yateholme, like those you provided. I shall now let that matter rest and continue with my Holme (and elsewhere) research. You mentioned the proliferation of chapels and later churches within the old Almondbury Parish and the problems caused by distances to travel to church each week. You will be aware that there was another reason for dissent by the parishioners of Holmfirth whereby they objected to the sharing of fees by Holmfirth Chapel with Almondbury and Kirkburton, depending on their place of residence. I located some C18 events for my family at the Parish of Mottram across the border in Cheshire. It appears to me that they preferred to travel there each week rather than go to Holmfirth, contribute to what was seen as two parishes and then have the prospect of the long walk back up the hill to Holme. And the distance to Mottram Parish Chapel at Tintwistle was similar anyway. The opening of St David's at Holmebridge should have been a blessing for many of the Holme, Upperthong and Austonley residents but by then, almost all of mine had left Holme and Almondbury altogether. Thanks for the interest and assistance. Bill Melbourne, Oz [email protected] wrote: > Hello Bill and List > > The index to the transcript of Almondbury PRs 1598-1652 lists 'Yates, > Yetam, Yateholm' together, indicating that these are variant spellings > of the same place. > > As Andy said, Almondbury was a huge parish, so to prevent people having > to walk too many miles to church, there were in the parish five 'Chapels > of Ease' (not to be confused with later non-conformist chapels), at > Holmfirth, Meltham, Honley, Marsden and Slaithwaite, which served the > population for all purposes until Hardwicke's Marriage Act in 1754, > when marriages had to take place only in the main parish church, though > burials and christenings continued at the chapels of ease. > > Holmfirth is complicated by the fact that part of Holmfirth lies in > Kirkburton parish, and Marsden lies partly in Huddersfield parish.The > chapel at Slaithwaite includes many entries for people living in > Linthwaite, but I think the township of Slaithwaite itself was in > Huddersfield Parish, which may explain why the registers for > Slaithwaite chapel do not seem to include any people living in > Slaithwaite! > Please ask further questions if that lot isn't clear- (and I can see > why it wouldn't be!) > > After the Church Building Act of 1818 (the 'Million Act), larger > parishes like Almondbury gradually began to be divided into smaller > parishes, each with their own church. > > The quotation Andy was talking about refers to John Wesley's visit to > Huddersfield in 1757, when he said 'I never saw a wilder people in > England'. > > regards, > > Lesley > > > > > >

Thanks Bill for this insight - I wasn't aware of the double contribution - all good background info. Best Wishes, Andy. At 05:50 09/02/2010, you wrote: >You mentioned the proliferation of chapels and later churches within the >old Almondbury Parish and the problems caused by distances to travel to >church each week. You will be aware that there was another reason for >dissent by the parishioners of Holmfirth whereby they objected to the >sharing of fees by Holmfirth Chapel with Almondbury and Kirkburton, >depending on their place of residence.