"Certificates of Marriage" in 1840s?

wexflyer

What were "certificates of marriage" used for in the 1840s, and when were they issued?
I ask as I have noticed what could be be my great-great-grandfather's marriage listed in a "register of certificates of marriage" in the Ferns parish registers - the time and place are correct for this. On the other hand, I can think that this might be a certificate for a completely different marriage that could have occurred decades earlier?
In either case, there is a two page list, that is separate from, and precedes the main register or marriages. Note that the marriage of interest is NOT included in the main registers, even though the date (1842) is covered by said registers...
Here is a link for the first of the two pages in question,
http://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000634066#page/151/mode/1up

pinkypinky

I've never seen something like that before. I note they are all men. Would it possibly be from that parish who married elsewhere?

wexflyer

pinkypinky wrote: »

I've never seen something like that before. I note they are all men. Would it possibly be from that parish who married elsewhere?

I was wondering about such a scenario too, as I believe my great-great-grandmother was indeed from a different parish, and I had previously rationalized the lack of an entry in the Ferns registers by the likelyhood that they were married in her parish. But if these were men who married in another parish, then should they not have gotten their certificate in that other parish, not in Ferns? Trouble is, it says a few times (on second page) that a certificate was issued **to** so and so. How would the clergy of Ferns know for sure if a parishioner had married in another parish, to the extent that they could issue a certificate? Any why would they need a "certificate" at all, this not being a time when paperwork was much used or needed?

Separately, someone else posted a link to an entry for such a certificate in a different diocese within the last few weeks, so this is not seemingly unique, though I have not come across another such list myself.

pinkypinky

If they were in the RIC, they would need to prove marriage, once it had taken place, because there were rules about where you could be posted.

wexflyer

pinkypinky wrote: »

If they were in the RIC, they would need to prove marriage, once it had taken place, because there were rules about where you could be posted.

I will have you know that my family were are all good decent folk - '98 and '16 men and women! No, this is nothing to do with the IC (not yet being RIC).

wexflyer

pinkypinky wrote: »

I note they are all men.

Not entirely. The list is overwhelmingly male, but I see a Sarah and a Dolly, and maybe a Josephine....

cat_r

If it's something to do with letters of freedom, then there may be a note against their names in the baptism registers.

Peregrinus

I think cat_r may be on to something. This may be a record of the issue of "letters of freedom" - certificates that people are not married (and are therefore free to marry). That would explain why they are mostly issued to men. The custom was to celebrate a marraige in the bride's parish, so it would mostly be grooms who would need to get letters of freedom from their home parishes.

pinkypinky

That's what I was getting at, but failed to use the phrase "letters of freedom"!

wexflyer

Thanks for the suggestions about "letters of freedom". Personally, this would be nice, as then the entry I referred to in my original post would then almost certainly be for my great-great-grandfather. Unfortunately, there are two strong arguments against this:
(1) There is internal evidence against this. Without checking too deeply, I notice that there is a "certificate of marriage" entry for Dennis Doyle of Ballyduff on 26 February 1841. But the marriage register shows a marriage for Dennis Doyle to Margaret Murphy of Ballyduff on 14 July 1836. So it would seem that Dennis, at least, was NOT free to marry. He was not a widower by February 1841 as the baptismal register shows he and Margaret had a child in August 1841.
(2) Turning a register of "Certificates of Marriage", into a proposed register of freedom to marry, i.e. a certificate of non-marriage, seems counter to the meaning of the words actually used.

I would also note that the example I just quoted for an in-parish marriage for Dennis Doyle also argues against the theory that these certificates were associated (solely) with marriages outside the parish.

Taking everything into account that I have gleaned so far, I would conclude that this "register of certificates of marriage" is exactly what it says on the box, and that such certificates were - for some unknown reason - more common than suspected in the 1840s.

Thanks again to everyone for their input.

CeannRua

wexflyer wrote: »

I will have you know that my family were are all good decent folk - '98 and '16 men and women! No, this is nothing to do with the IC (not yet being RIC).

What an unfortunately worded post this is.

Back on topic: Fr James Roche was PP of Ferns when this register of certificates was created. He went to Ferns from Enniscorthy. This is a page from that parish's marriage register: http://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000634060#page/199/mode/1up

Unless someone can come up with another translation, I'd suggest the Latin roughly translates as letters of freedom. Perhaps the certs were issued in connection with banns procedures.

L1011

wexflyer wrote: »

I will have you know that my family were are all good decent folk - '98 and '16 men and women! No, this is nothing to do with the IC (not yet being RIC).

You really, really, really haven't got the slightest idea about what the RIC were as a police force, or Irish history, or much good grace really.

pedroeibar1

CeannRua wrote: »

What an unfortunately worded post this is.

Back on topic: ....

I agree; however, when I first read it I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt for a tongue in cheek or (perhaps) uninformed comment. Too many, because of teaching/lack of research have a skewed idea of what the RIC entailed (and I write as one who never had a IC / DMP / RIC man in my family history).

wexflyer

L1011 wrote: »

You really, really, really haven't got the slightest idea about what the RIC were as a police force, or Irish history, or much good grace really.

You might be surprised, as you have no idea. My great-great-grandparents and their children knew all about the good grace of the RIC, having been rudely evicted from their home and farm by said gentlemen. Some years later, said gentlemen in turn gave a great-uncle of mine an enforced holiday in beautiful Frongoch, despite the fact that he was unpolitical and uninvolved in the events of Easter '16.

wexflyer

I see that the Irish intolerance of differing viewpoints, and love of conformity continue unabated. I appreciate everyone's efforts and input, pretty much irrespective.

CeannRua

wexflyer wrote: »

I see that the Irish intolerance of differing viewpoints, and love of conformity continue unabated. I appreciate everyone's efforts and input, pretty much irrespective.

Well. As an Irish person, thanks for my share in this. I have no problem with differing viewpoints but you seem to be viewing an entire police force through the microcosm of your own family history which isn't fair or logical.

As for what you call 'Irish intolerance of differing viewpoints,' there's a fair share of irony here. As a user of this forum I'd like to think that people from all kinds of traditions would feel comfortable posting here with their queries. Your views don't seem to be conducive to creating that kind of environment.

CeannRua

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

I agree; however, when I first read it I gave the OP the benefit of the doubt for a tongue in cheek or (perhaps) uninformed comment. Too many, because of teaching/lack of research have a skewed idea of what the RIC entailed (and I write as one who never had a IC / DMP / RIC man in my family history).

Absolutely - and this is why my post is worded as it is. The thing with the tongue in cheek device is though, imo, that if readers are questioning if it is being employed, there's usually a problem.

wexflyer

CeannRua wrote: »

Well. As an Irish person, thanks for my share in this. I have no problem with differing viewpoints but you seem to be viewing an entire police force through the microcosm of your own family history which isn't fair or logical.

As for what you call 'Irish intolerance of differing viewpoints,' there's a fair share of irony here. As a user of this forum I'd like to think that people from all kinds of traditions would feel comfortable posting here with their queries. Your views don't seem to be conducive to creating that kind of environment.

How you can say that "I'd like to think that people from all kinds of traditions would feel comfortable posting here with their queries" escapes me, given your reaction. As it happens, the microcosm of my own family history happens to coincide rather well with the traditional view of the RIC, and I don't have a problem with that. Given as an "Irish person", as you put it.

L1011

wexflyer wrote: »

You might be surprised, as you have no idea. My great-great-grandparents and their children knew all about the good grace of the RIC, having been rudely evicted from their home and farm by said gentlemen. Some years later, said gentlemen in turn gave a great-uncle of mine an enforced holiday in beautiful Frongoch, despite the fact that he was unpolitical and uninvolved in the events of Easter '16.

RIC in 1840s != the remaining, black & tans / irregulars et al supported force in 1916

Your post was, and remains, massively insulting

I never detected any tongue in cheek as other posters thought there might be and your reply shows there wasn't

wexflyer

L1011 wrote: »

RIC in 1840s != the remaining, black & tans / irregulars et al supported force in 1916

Your post was, and remains, massively insulting

I never detected any tongue in cheek as other posters thought there might be and your reply shows there wasn't

I believe that I was the one who pointed out that the RIC did not enjoy the "Royal" appellation in the 1840s, so you are a little late to that party.

The RIC was not "supported by" any black & tans / irregulars in 1916, or for several years after that.

As for any words of mine being "massively insulting", it is always remarkable how easy it is for some to turn their outrage! setting to "uninhibited".

L1011

wexflyer wrote: »

As for any words of mine being "massively insulting", it is always remarkable how easy it is for some to turn their outrage! setting to "uninhibited".

Considering your post at 4:04am (attacking some perceived "intolerance of differing viewpoints, and love of conformity", which is both odd and hypocritical considering you then try to use a "traditional view" you perceive to support you), I think you're pretty guilty here.

You made a vastly insulting throwaway comment and your defense of it is bordering on the ridiculous.

wexflyer

L1011 wrote: »

Considering your post at 4:04am (attacking some perceived "intolerance of differing viewpoints, and love of conformity", which is both odd and hypocritical considering you then try to use a "traditional view" you perceive to support you), I think you're pretty guilty here.

You made a vastly insulting throwaway comment and your defense of it is bordering on the ridiculous.

I don't believe stating the truth is "vastly insulting". You may have a different opinion on that. As for "intolerance of differing viewpoints, and love of conformity", do I really need to point out that it is now the revisionists/secularists/PC-folk who have assumed that mantle? The world turned upside down indeed. This is all getting uncomfortably far from the original topic, but some of you seem insistent that the fine gentlemen of the RIC have to be defended from any animadversion. What next, put me on trial for sedition?

L1011

wexflyer wrote: »

I don't believe stating the truth is "vastly insulting".

You didn't state the truth

You have clearly decided you need some bogeymen in your history and its clearly not worth trying to convince you otherwise.

pinkypinky

Mod note: OK, enough of this. We're massively off topic now. If you want to debate the historical impact of the RIC et all, start a thread in the History forum. Let's be nice everyone.

PinkyPinky