Church of Ireland TO Roman Catholic

Newstreet

There seems to be a constantly recurring pattern of Dublin ancestors in the Liberties area of the city, who were Roman Catholic, but whose earliest probable ancestors in the early 1800s and before, were Church of Ireland.

Some of these names, such as Roche, were evidently descended from French Huguenots, who were protestant, many eventually becoming catholic. But other names, such as Connor, are not so evidently French, and some of their earliest ancestors in the city appear to be protestant too.

My question is, why did they not remain protestant? What was the impetus in the early to mid 1800s for protestant Dubliners to become catholic? It seems to recur on the family tree, among a number of family names.

Jellybaby1

Were they C of I at baptism and changed to RC on marriage maybe? That did it in the 1940's and 50's and 60's as far as I remember. Some of my family changed to one side, others changed to the other side, I never know where I am with them. :rolleyes:

Newstreet

Not individually, no. I haven't found any sign of individual ancestors changing religion, or being baptised as adults, for example, except two in entirely different circumstances, and at a much later date.

What I mean is that I have RC records of entire families going back to the early 1800s, and even before, and their apparent ancestors in the late 1700s seem to be CofI, but I cannot find where the changeover might have happened.

I just wondered was there a general trend of Church of Ireland Dublin people becoming catholic with the arrival of Emancipation, or is it just coincidence that it just seems to be some of my ancestors' families?

* EDIT *

Let me edit that - What I appear to have is RC baptism and marriage records going back to the early 1800s. Then, I have heaps of CofI burials that look very like they are related. But the CofI burials have very little information other than sometimes an address, and there are no apparent CofI marriage records to give matching names or sponsors. It looks like these are related, but at what stage would the religion have changed, if it did, and why?

Mollymoo19

Many Catholics were buried in graveyards controlled by the Church of Ireland and were thus recorded in COI registers. In Dublin, Glasnevin Cemetery opened in 1832 and changed this practice significantly. So, they need not necessarily have changed religion.

Newstreet

Ah, very good.

However, in my particular situation, the St.Nicholas records seem to go right back to the late 1700s, yet in every case, my own family baptisms and marriages vanish prior to about the 1820s. I had figured this would be because they had previously been protestant, and while the RC records were there, the protestant ones weren't. Except for protestant burials.

So I still ask myself, is it more likely my earliest ancestors were RC, with no evident church baptisms or marriages, but with CofI burial records, or is it more likely they were originally CofI, and at some stage, changed over to RC?

Sorry, I know it's clutching at straws, I just wondered if others had found similar trends on their own trees.

shanew

Newstreet wrote: »

..St.Nicholas records seem to go right back to the late 1700s, yet in every case, my own family baptisms and marriages vanish prior to about the 1820s. I had figured this would be because they had previously been protestant, and while the RC records were there, the protestant ones weren't. Except for protestant burials......

I think in most cases it probably a case of the RC records for whatever parish the family lived in at the time simply coming to an end, and separate families that happen to have the same surname showing up with in the Church of Ireland records... where these survive can go back further than RC records. The other possibility is that 'your' family moved to the city from elsewhere, as many people did, and since rural RC registers tend to only start on average in the 1830s and so can often not be located, at least with any certainty.

teddyhead

Newstreet wrote: »

Some of these names, such as Roche, were evidently descended from French Huguenots, who were protestant, many eventually becoming catholic.

Is that not a Norman/Hiberno norman name ?

Newstreet

Yes, Roche generally appears to be Norman, as you say. But the Roches in Dublin appear to be an entirely unrelated clan from those elsewhere in Ireland, descended from La Roche, a French Huguenot name. A Roche cousin had the DNA testing done, confirming he is not related to Roches elsewhere in Ireland.

I think I need to be more specific about my particular case. The name Connor appears in RC records for St.Nicholas of Myra going right back to the 1700s. But my particular Connor line seems to disappear before the 1820s. I can tie my Connor line down to Mitre Alley, which lay between St.Patrick's Cathedral and Kevin Street. A number of protestant burials appear for Mitre Alley, and also for Barry's Court, across the road in Cathedral Lane, one of whom is a sure fire bet for my 4th great grandfather, who appears nowhere in RC records.

If my 3rd great grandfather was born protestant, it might explain why neither his, nor any of his parents or siblings, appear in the RC records before the 1820s, even though there are dozens of other RC records from the period.

So evidently, if not wholly verifiably, my Connor ancestors were once protestant, and became RC. I wondered if they were originally protestant, why they might have changed to become RC. It may have been that they became RC in order to marry RC girls. In one case, a Connor ancestor did not marry until fifteen years after the baptism of their first child!

Likewise, the names Reilly, Roche, Martin, Leavy and Fox, all appear in RC records going right back to the 1700s. But in every case, my own line vanishes about the 1820s. None so far reach back into those 1700s records. So I was beginning to wonder if there was a pattern of such names gradually changing from protestant to catholic over a period of fifty to a hundred years, and if so, why they might, some or even all, change religion.

It's all very vague, I know, I just wondered if anyone else had found these patterns.

pedroeibar1

Newstreet wrote: »

Not individually, no. I haven't found any sign of individual ancestors changing religion, or being baptised as adults, ...........

AFAIK both the Anglican and RC Churches accept as lawful/valid the baptisms of either Church??

L1011

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

AFAIK both the Anglican and RC Churches accept as lawful/valid the baptisms of either Church??

The vast majority of Christian churches accept each others baptisms but usually not later induction routines (confirmation etc).

You get extremely rate occurrences of conditional baptisms on adults before marriage, basically because the rules say you can't be baptised twice its basically a "in case you weren't, you're now baptised" arse-covering routine :pac: