Deciphering help - dispensations - Latin?

montgo

Attached partial scan from Parish Marriage Records page.

On the top of this column, there is the word "Denuntiationes"

At the bottom of the page, the note "Si dispensatum fuerit, notetur, et a quo" - assume this is to note any dispensation and from/by whom.

So is the name of the priest on the last line ie Canon Cahill the one who granted the dispensation?

All the records that I have seen before referred to consanguinity dispensation, so what does "in bannis" mean?.

So I think it is
Dispensation
Name of priest. AP Canon Ryan maybe

Marriage?
"in tempore"
Dispensation
Canon Cahill

P. Breathnach

montgo wrote: »

Attached partial scan from Parish Marriage Records page.

On the top of this column, there is the word "Denuntiationes"

This means publication or announcement - this is consistent with what I say below.

At the bottom of the page, the note "Si dispensatum fuerit, notetur, et a quo" - assume this is to note any dispensation and from/by whom.

Correct.

So is the name of the priest on the last line ie Canon Cahill the one who granted the dispensation?

Yes.

All the records that I have seen before referred to consanguinity dispensation, so what does "in bannis" mean?.

"The banns" - a fotrmal requirement that the intention of a couple to marry should be announced in the chuch on three consecutive Sundays before the ceremony. Dispensation from this requirement was commonplace - it seems that it was so common that a column was provided in the register specifically to record such dispensations.

"In tempore" means "In [the matter of] time". My interpretation is that the notice given of intention to marry was short, and a dispensation was also granted on that. The couple were either lax about dealing with things, or they married in haste.

montgo

Cheers & thanks.

That explains it. Some pages of this register had a dispensation noted for all 13 marriages and I thought surely that was impossible to have so many consanguinity dispensations!

So would the consanguinity be noted on this page at all then? The witnesses were not listed.

P. Breathnach

I would think that a consaguinity dispensation would be a bigger deal than a publication dispensation. I have a hazy notion that such a matter had to be decided by the bishop, rather than one of the priests of the parish. I suspect that this column would not have been used for it, but that there would be a record in diocesan offices, and a letter furnished to the couple to tell the priest that he could go ahead with the ceremony.

But I'm guessing.

CeannRua

Canon Cahill is designated 'V.G' meaning Vicar General so he might have granted the dispensation on behalf of the Bishop. He wasn't necessarily a priest of the parish unless you have already checked this?

tenterfields

Dispensation "in tempore" might also indicate permission to marry in a "closed' period. I recall reading somewhere that marriage during Lent and, I think, around Christmas required special permission. The date of the marriage will, presumably, show whether this might be the explanation.

montgo

I have a list of the parish priests and neither Canons Cahill & Ryan(?) are included.

Only the first 2 records have the names of priests recorded.

I've just realised that Catherine Bianconi, daughter of Charles of the transport family is on the list!!

The records for 15/16 Feb 1888 had the "in tempore" Weds/Thurs - Easter Sunday was April 1st.
The records in the following days did not have the "in tempore".

tenterfields

In that case, it must be a permission to marry at short notice.