Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AdrianB38

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 24
Cheshire / Re: St.Josephs,Stockport. Baptisms.
« on: Tuesday 20 November 18 00:14 GMT (UK)  »
Mike - not my area either but you definitely deserve a vote of thanks.

Couple of points for info - in all that, we're actually taking about just one index at base. At least to start with. FamilySearch indexed the Cheshire PRs under contract to Chester RO for supplying to their contractor for the online Cheshire PRs - and that was FindmyPast of course. Ancestry also appear to have had copies of at least some of the FS indexes. So if you've found the same error on all 3 sites, at root it's down to FS.

You can talk to FS (as we have done on their GetSatisfaction site) until you're blue in the face about correction of indexes and nothing happens. They don't have an index correction facility. It's an ambition of theirs and has been for years....

Ancestry presumably allow the correction of single entries - where correction actually means adding alternative values. I'm assuming that the correction facility is a/v on a text only, no-image collection there.

FindMyPast will allow the correction of single entries - where correction means replacing the incorrect values.

Of course the potential issues with FindMyPast's indexes (and possibly Ancestry's) are that (a) you may not be able to correct something as fundamental as the type of event (I've not checked) and (b) individual correction isn't even appropriate - there needs to be a mass correction that can only be done by FindMyPast's data support team (or Ancestry's). If anyone were to try to raise this with FindMyPast, it's a dead cert that the first response will be "You can submit the correction yourself". At this point, I grit my teeth and reply suggesting that they read the initial problem again and submit it to their data support team. Usually the 2nd go gets it past the "Read a script" stage. (Don't be too hard on them - I've been in IT Support and the first line response team is always just reading the script - and is probably not allowed to do anything else. But they should recognise when to escalate...)

I've never tried to submit this sort of error to FindMyPast so have no idea how easy it is for them to correct without losing the link to the images. It may not be simple for them to do. It certainly isn't the only batch wrongly placed - it is a classic error in FS-derived indexes that the location at the start of the film gets applied to all batches on that film. There are some Wybunbury events that are attributed to Wilmslow, for instance. (Or vice versa?)

Cheshire / Re: Edwin Walter
« on: Thursday 01 November 18 11:48 GMT (UK)  »
I agree with the above - the way I did it was to look in CheshireBMD ( for a marriage for Alma Walmsley in 1951 - this comes up:

Cheshire Marriage indexes for the years: 1951
Surname    Forename(s) Surname   Forename(s)    Church / Register Office   Registers At   Reference
WALMSLEY   Alma Mary   WALKER   Edwin              North Reddish, St Agnes   Stockport   ST10/6/256

The marriage certificate will probably show their addresses but I don't have a good selection of certificates from this era to have a feel for the probability. Tracing them thereafter would probably only be possible with Electoral Registers and that sort of stuff isn't generally online for that period.

CheshireBMD version of the death found by AVM228 (thanks!) is
Cheshire Death indexes for the years: 1955
Surname   Forename(s)   Age or Date of Birth   Sub-District   Registers At   Reference
WALKER   Alma Mary            72                               Bredbury   Stockport   BRE/1B/28

So she died in the Bredbury sub-district. (Whether she was resident there is another matter).

Cheshire / Re: 1929 Electoral Register same property two different entries
« on: Friday 28 September 18 19:28 BST (UK)  »
... but maybe what we are seeing is the relic of those Divisions. They took the titles out but didn't reorder the entries because that is hard work type-setting etc. ...
On mature reflection (it happens  ;)  )  I withdraw that suggestion. It occurred to me later that just 3 or 4 pages was not going to be sufficient for a whole Division of that Ward. In fact, I can now see (he said hopefully) the difference between the two sets of Rosslyn addresses.

The 3 Muntons (2350-52) are in named houses in the "middle" of Swanlow Lane, between 19 and 21. The other 2 (2080/81) are in named houses under a "street name" of Swanlow - no "Lane" word. As "Swanlow" collates before "Swanlow Lane", the two in Swanlow come before all the ones in Swanlow Lane. That might suggest Harriet Ladner and Jane Ikin (2080/81) didn't successfully apply for their vote at the same time as the other three.

There is also a repeat at Rock Villa, and at Sandycroft / Sandicroft (assuming those two are the same place) - maybe others.

Cheshire / Re: 1929 Electoral Register same property two different entries
« on: Thursday 27 September 18 21:26 BST (UK)  »
... Clicking back to the front cover of both entries, it gives 1st May 1929 14 October 1930. Could there be two different registers for the same year? ...

No - indeed if you scroll back on FindMyPast, you find that the 3 Muntons are on p39 of Polling District T, Swanlow Ward, nos 2350-2352. And just a bit further back (so the same physical book - usually), the other 2 at Rosslyn are on p35 of Polling District T, Swanlow Ward, and nos 2080/81.

So it's the same register.

Why are they split? Not at all sure but the idea that some are visitors is not true. You get your franchise based on where you live (or own) - it's not like the census where you get recorded wherever you are on one night. (I have to say that I've never understood the difference between Residence and Occupation - it's occupation, as in occupation of a property).

What this may be is a relic of the way that registers were previously organised. I'm looking at a 1919 Register for Alsager and each ward contains up to 3 divisions:
  • Division 1 contains the names of those persons who are entitled to vote both as parliamentary electors and as local government electors
  • Division 2 contains the names of those persons who are entitled to vote as parliamentary electors but not as local government electors
  • Division 3 contains the names of those persons who are entitled to vote as local government electors but not as parliamentary

Now there's no sign of Divisions in this book, and not even much suggestion in the values on the pages that it might be the answer, but maybe what we are seeing is the relic of those Divisions. They took the titles out but didn't reorder the entries because that is hard work type-setting etc. You can't just re-sort the spreadsheet in 1929. So the pair were originally in one division and the trio originally in another. And changes to circumstances may cause different values in qualifications, etc., over the years until it no longer makes much sense.

Cheshire / Re: Cheshire statutory burial and cremation records.
« on: Thursday 20 September 18 19:37 BST (UK)  »
The Blog isn't there any more but Deceased Online should be easy enough to find -

Tipperary / Re: John Andrew Jackson, murdered 1863, Mount Pleasant, Killowney Little
« on: Wednesday 22 August 18 13:34 BST (UK)  »
... Peters, Cummins, Kennedy

Yes, there seems to have been, as far as I remember from the newspaper accounts that I found, something close to a panic by the police and "Round up anyone who might possibly have been involved" seems to have been the instruction. As I said, even the steward who discovered the body was later arrested (?) and held for some time, while the domestics were all questioned. The newspaper noted that none of the ordinary people came to the funeral. Small wonder in view of the way that they were treated.

... Yes, Sharon has done a lot of research on the Surname!
A heroic endeavour given that it's not exactly a rare name!

... Just wondering if you made any progress with finding out what happened with the murder trial. ...
I've found nothing further but then I haven't looked either, partly because John Andrew Jackson is so far from my line.

... Also how did you come to have interest in this case?
Well, the Jacksons aren't my relatives, instead they are related to an old school friend (who turns out to be my 4th cousin - that's what happens when your mothers' both have connections to the same small village in Cheshire). In fact, I started helping him with his military stuff on that line, which included Major Jackson, and then, as often happens, simply got interested and did some more research, partly as a training exercise for myself to understand Irish Genealogy. In fact, John Andrew Jackson isn't even particularly related to him, as he descends from a younger half-brother via Rapla.

... the lady of Mr. Tuthill of Rapla, and the sister of Judge Jackson, was found outside the house quite dead ... situated about two miles from Nenagh."
Yes, I think I found that in a newspaper search. So far as I know, that's a different lot of Jacksons, even though Rapla is common to that and "my" lot. The Major and John Andrew Jackson were both JPs, not judges, for one thing. And there's a website, "The Silver Bowl", which identifies her as "Anna Strettell JACKSON (1793-1844) of Cork"  (See I don't guarantee the identification - just that I can't match her to the Major's lot from that description.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 24