Latin translation help

pinkypinky

What's the note on the birth of Maria Catherina Byrne say please? It's right in the centre of the page.
https://registers.nli.ie/pages/vtls000633822_058

Her father is not named here but he is on the birth cert, so I'm expecting it's something to do with illegitimacy.

ath262

I think the last word is father, in some declension (my Latin useless), a word in the 1st line that looks like Puella?, the first word on the second line some form of the word illegitimate. There's a word in there that looks like hominum or similar...

alternate version of the link (allows zoom etc)

pinkypinky

Puella means girl, afaik.

coolshannagh28

The legible words are girl , man and father in English

Earnest

??? by/from a/the girl (but ??? ???) of men by name? ??? father. I suspect it is saying something about what people are saying about the parentage or alleged parentage. As you note, the father's name is lacking.

Wyldwood

My best guess
?? by the girl (but denied by the husband/man) the man's name is not the father.

pinkypinky

Wow!

pinkypinky

An offline friend suggests that puella could be referencing the mother or the baby girl - this slightly changes it.

Wyldwood

Thinking about it again, and depending on the word under the splodge on the bottom line, maybe she is saying he is the father and he's denying it?

a puella could be from the mother or child but more likely the mother since I don't think the baby would be giving much inormation .

the bit in brackets is 'but denied by the husband/man'

esse patrem is 'to be the father'

hominem nominem is basically 'the man named'

My latin is very rusty so someone else might come on board with a better translation

pinkypinky

Thanks, I appreciate all possibilities. And it's a pain that there's a splotch on the page. Presumably that is there in the original too.

Hermy

Looking at the Ancestry copy of that image it's just possible that what's behind the splodge may be legible on the original register.

pinkypinky

Hmm, the Ancestry copy should be identical to the National Library's...

I'll give the church a call though. It's worth checking.

spurious

It can't have been the only instance of it and it's probably a standard phrase they use to record it. I would scan through a few years records and see does any other baptism have a similar note.

Hermy

pinkypinky wrote: »

Hmm, the Ancestry copy should be identical to the National Library's...

Indeed! Same image, same info - just slightly different in appearance.

With entries that are hard to read I check both (or the Irish Genealogy copies) just in case one reveals a tad more than the other.

pinkypinky

spurious wrote: »

It can't have been the only instance of it and it's probably a standard phrase they use to record it. I would scan through a few years records and see does any other baptism have a similar note.

I'm trying this...

Unfortunately whoever transcribed this on Rootsireland didn't bother with the comments section.

Wyldwood

Looking at the Ancestry image on zoom I don't think that's a splodge at all I think the priest crossed something out and then wrote 'esse'

I think best guess is that the phrase means that the mother has named a father but he denies it's his.

pinkypinky

Fascinating.
The couple involved got married 4 years later and had 4 more legitimate children...

CassieManson

Wyldwood wrote:

I think best guess is that the phrase means that the mother has named a father but he denies it's his.

The baby's surname also appears to be crossed out

BowWow

Wyldwood wrote: »

I think best guess is that the phrase means that the mother has named a father but he denies it's his.

Possibly - "The mother has named the father but he hasn't or won't confirm that he is."

coolshannagh28

According to the girl (but is illegitimate)the man named is not the father

pinkypinky

I wonder have we got a stickler priest here.

The same child's birth is registered as if the parents were married, i.e. father named, mother "formerly" Byrne.

I went over a few decades of the Malahide register and didn't find anything similar notes but they were very conscientious with updating marriages onto baptisms as per the Ne Temere rules. Useful!

Donalde

My best attempt:
Assinter [Asserter?] a puella (sed negatur a virs/hominem nominem esse patrem.
[Parentage] asserted by the girl but denied by the named man that he is the father.

montgo

I'm looking for Latin translation of the dispensation on the marriage record of 8 Feb 1858 of Patricius Roche & Lucinda Kirby.
Bottom of left hand page:-
https://registers.nli.ie/registers/vtls000632759#page/99/mode/1up
Many thanks

A New earth

Came across this the other day that might help

A few of the more common terms:
Baptizavi: baptized
Cognomen: last name
Die: day
This day: hodie
Day before: pridie
Mensis: month
Natus: birth
Nomina Parentum: name of parents
Sponsoribus: sponsors
Testes adfuerunt: witnesses present
Daughter - filia
Son - filius
Father: pater
Mother: mater

pinkypinky

Posts moved to the Latin translation thread.

Looks like a dispensation for affinity in the first grade. I think that's something like marrying your brother or sister in-law. Good summary on this page.

Hermy

pinkypinky wrote: »

Good summary on this page.

That's a great article.

montgo

Thanks for that, Pinky.

It could be that Patrick was previously married to Lucinda's sister.

I'm getting a 403 error message on that link unfortunately.

pinkypinky

Oh link is working ok but if you google "trentino genealogy consanguinity affinity" you should find it.

I keep it bookmarked because it's a really clear guide, even though referencing Italian genealogy.

Mick Tator

montgo wrote: »

Thanks for that, Pinky.

It could be that Patrick was previously married to Lucinda's sister.

I'm getting a 403 error message on that link unfortunately.

Hi Montgo,
In case you've not got it,
Patricius Roche & Lucinda Kirby obtenta dispensation Apostolica in impedimento affineratatis in 1 O gradu conjuncti sunt in matrimonium



The were related by marriage – one of them had been married to a sibling of the other, hence first degree of affinity and dispensation necessary.

rusheens

Can anyone help with the latin in the Observations section for the marriage of Francis Barrington and Bridget Keogh on this page (no: 49)? Many thanks!

pinkypinky

Could you provide the url to the page please to allow for bigger zooming?

I think the Latin words are

matrimonium hoc ex ____ licentia arch___ celebrat____ est

and then initials

So suspect something to do with a special licence, which is usually to avoid the banns.

Wyldwood

Matrimomium hoc ex speciali licentia Arch... celebratum est - This marriage is celebrated by special ? licence.
Can't read the word beginning with Arch..??

Mick Tator

In bannis dispensatum est (banns are dispensed [with]) and Matrimonium hoc ex speciale licentia archepisc. Celebratum est (This marriage was celebrated by special licence from the archbishop.)

pinkypinky

I knew Mick would get it!

Mick Tator

pinkypinky wrote: »

I knew Mick would get it!

:D In fairness, you were almost there and Wyldwood had it too, I was typing when s/he posted. I wonder why the banns were dispensed with. it's sorta unusual. Could there have been an advanced pregnancy?

the_syco

Mick Tator wrote: »

:D In fairness, you were almost there and Wyldwood had it too, I was typing when s/he posted. I wonder why the banns were dispensed with. it's sorta unusual. Could there have been an advanced pregnancy?

From looking at the last paragraphs at https://www.irishfamilyhistorycentre.com/article/how-to-avoid-an-illicit-marriage-marriage-banns it seems that some banns involved the marriage not happening at the church. Could ill health force the marriage to happen at their home, to facilitate joining of land and/or business, as opposed to a romantic joining?

rusheens

Thank you everyone! I love how helpful this board is, thank you.

But I do wonder why the special treatment? The first child was born a respectable 11 months later, the groom was a tradesman (brass finisher) so I doubt it was for business reasons.

The bride was from Wicklow (Glascolmane? The closest I could think of is Liscolman?), which is a little unusual, the rest of the marriages in the family were all Dublin North.

Any ideas, hive mind?

spurious

rusheens wrote: »

Thank you everyone! I love how helpful this board is, thank you.

But I do wonder why the special treatment? The first child was born a respectable 11 months later, the groom was a tradesman (brass finisher) so I doubt it was for business reasons.

The bride was from Wicklow (Glascolmane? The closest I could think of is Liscolman?), which is a little unusual, the rest of the marriages in the family were all Dublin North.

Any ideas, hive mind?

Just to confirm for you, Liscolman is down as Glascolman in the Hearth Money Rolls.
"In the half Barony of Shilelah there were 555 homes inhabitated taking in the parishes of Ahool, Glasscolman, Mullincuffe, Macoon, Cornove, and Killavin, 231 of these homes had one hearth, 40 were the proud owners of more than one and Richard Whineat esq, occupied a palatial residence with six Hearths at Coolatin."

Mick Tator

rusheens wrote: »

……But I do wonder why the special treatment??

It wasn’t ‘very’ special but is just somewhat unusual. My guess is that it was because the bride was marrying outside her home parish.

the_syco wrote: »

From looking at the last paragraphs at https://www.irishfamilyhistorycentre.com/article/how-to-avoid-an-illicit-marriage-marriage-banns it seems that some banns involved the marriage not happening at the church. Could ill health force the marriage to happen at their home, to facilitate joining of land and/or business, as opposed to a romantic joining?

Not all banns terminated in a marriage, there could have been a change of mind by one of the parties. It had nothing to do with the marriage being held in a church or home, banns were for 'impediments'.In that period a ‘home’ marriage was possible but very infrequent. It could be for health reasons as you suggest but I believe it usually was associated with the economic and social standing of the family.

Until the mid 1700’s marriages could take place anywhere provided they were done by an ordained clergyman of the Established Church. This allowed ‘secret marriages’ to sneak in, those that did not have parental consent and some which were consanguineous or bigamous. This was stopped by the Marriage Act of 1753 which required that all marriages to be legally binding should be conducted by an ordained minister in a parish church of the Established Church. That also included the marriage of Catholics, but usually was ignored by them. For those under 21 parental consent was required by the Act and any clergyman that disobeyed this could be fined or even transported. There are cases of Established Church clergymen prosecuting RC priests for breaching this law. Prior to that Act home marriages were quite frequent and in some social classes were the norm.

Banns cover a different aspect, as the article you referenced describes, and in short were to ‘discover’ any impediment to the marriage.

The ’73 Act was repealed by the Marriage Act of 1836 which allowed non-conformists and Catholics to be married in their own places of worship.
The only ‘in the home’ marriages I have encountered are three in my maternal and paternal lines. All were daughters of wealthy individuals, took place in the homes of the brides, and two brides went on to have several children.
One was in Co. Limerick in 1848 and the Marriage Register makes no mention of the ceremony being held in the home – I picked that info up in a newspaper article (Dublin Weekly Register).
Another was in Co. Tipp., 1854, again it was a newspaper (Cork Examiner) announcement that gave the info. The bride’s brother was a priest, he performed the ceremony and it was a well-known family.
The third was in Cork City in 1911 and marriage register (Civil) has ‘Married in the Roman Catholic Church’ crossed out and her home address inserted. I've no idea what is in the church register.

(edit - sorry for going off Latin topic, move if required)

Earnest

Mick Tator wrote: »

It wasn’t ‘very’ special but is just somewhat unusual. My guess is that it was because the bride was marrying outside her home parish.



Not all banns terminated in a marriage, there could have been a change of mind by one of the parties. It had nothing to do with the marriage being held in a church or home, banns were for 'impediments'.In that period a ‘home’ marriage was possible but very infrequent. It could be for health reasons as you suggest but I believe it usually was associated with the economic and social standing of the family.

Until the mid 1700’s marriages could take place anywhere provided they were done by an ordained clergyman of the Established Church. This allowed ‘secret marriages’ to sneak in, those that did not have parental consent and some which were consanguineous or bigamous. This was stopped by the Marriage Act of 1753 which required that all marriages to be legally binding should be conducted by an ordained minister in a parish church of the Established Church. That also included the marriage of Catholics, but usually was ignored by them. For those under 21 parental consent was required by the Act and any clergyman that disobeyed this could be fined or even transported. There are cases of Established Church clergymen prosecuting RC priests for breaching this law. Prior to that Act home marriages were quite frequent and in some social classes were the norm.

Banns cover a different aspect, as the article you referenced describes, and in short were to ‘discover’ any impediment to the marriage.

The ’73 Act was repealed by the Marriage Act of 1836 which allowed non-conformists and Catholics to be married in their own places of worship.

...

The Marriage Act 1753 was an English act which did not apply in Ireland. Similarly with the Marriage Act 1836. As far as I know, there was no similar legislation in Ireland until 1844. Certainly, in a case involving an ancestor of mine in 1812, the issues were bigamy and lack of parental consent, and the secrecy of the marriage was not mentioned as a problem.

Mick Tator

Technically correct, but the Church followed them in Canon Law which is why for e.g. there is a Schultz Register. edit Schulze

Earnest

Mick Tator wrote: »

Technically correct, but the Church followed them in Canon Law which is why for e.g. there is a Schultz Register. edit Schulze

So Catholic marriages were not allowed to be secret by the Church, but other marriages were allowed to be secret by the State?

pinkypinky

Can we keep this thread for just deciphering Latin please?

rusheens

spurious wrote: »

Just to confirm for you, Liscolman is down as Glascolman in the Hearth Money Rolls.
"In the half Barony of Shilelah there were 555 homes inhabitated taking in the parishes of Ahool, Glasscolman, Mullincuffe, Macoon, Cornove, and Killavin, 231 of these homes had one hearth, 40 were the proud owners of more than one and Richard Whineat esq, occupied a palatial residence with six Hearths at Coolatin."

Thank you so much for clarifying this for me