Funny/Unusual records

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Don't forget that Louvain too had an Irish college and was part of the French Republic from 1795 until 1815.

The college at Louvain was closed in 1794 (for the obvious reason) and didn't reopen (as an Irish College) until some time in the 20th century.

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

The baptism in question took place less than 8 years after Napoleon was excommunicated by the Pope so it is most likely that the name was given to the infant as a 'punishment' name. However he probably grew up as 'Sean'. The power of a priest back then (and indeed until recent times) allowed him do what he wanted.

The excommunication was just one episode in a rather, um, chequered relationship between Napoleon and the papacy, which was still ongoing for at least the earliest of the three baptisms mentioned. This was a bit before the papacy loomed quite as large in the Irish Catholic imagination as it came to in the later nineteenth century and I suspect that, even for a parish priest, attitudes to Napoleon would have been influenced more by his relationship with Britain than by his relationship with the papacy. And, to be honest, throughout the period when these baptisms took place, he would have been an even bigger bogeyman for the British than for the Popes.

I think the view that the name would have been chosen by the priest is conjectural; do we have evidence of priests imposing names, especially derogatory names, on illegitimate children during this period? Plus, if the priest was going to impose a name, wouldn't he be far more likely to impose a name with Christian, if penitential, associations.

I think the key here may be the spelling. A search of the church records for "Napoleon" turns up 37 hits so the name, while uncommon, wasn't unique. "Nepoleon", turns up only 4 hits, of which three are in the same parish in a short space of years. Which makes me think that, actually, the common link here may not be that these chldren were baptised in a parish where the priest liked to impose names as a cruel joke but, maybe, they were baptised in a parish where the priest was under a misapprehension as to the spelling of "Napoleon", but the name itself was not considered punitive and there is no real reason to think the priest chose it.

pedroeibar1

Peregrinus wrote: »

....

We're also assuming that the baptismal name is chosen by the priest but, of course, this isn't normally the case. The most the priest usually gets to do is to veto a proposed name, usually on the grounds that it isn't Christian or biblical. Yet it's undeniably striking that there are several Napoleons in this register, and they're all illegitimate.

Don't forget that Louvain too had an Irish college and was part of the French Republic from 1795 until 1815.
The baptism in question took place less than 8 years after Napoleon was excommunicated by the Pope so it is most likely that the name was given to the infant as a 'punishment' name. However he probably grew up as 'Sean'. The power of a priest back then (and indeed until recent times) allowed him do what he wanted.

kildarejohn wrote: »

Just a wild guess, but I wonder perhaps was the priest educated in a Catholic seminary in Europe and therefore chose these very European names. If the priest was heavily influenced by his contacts with French Catholics perhaps he was naming the babies after people he knew.

Unlikely that he knew Napoleon! Not personally, at any rate.

The suggestion of an eduction in France is an interesting one. The Irish Colleges in France were closed (by the revolutionary government) in 1793; Maynooth was founded in 1795 in response. About 10 years later, the Irish College in Paris was reopened, but as a much smaller institution, and with some students spending a part of their formation there, and many not going there at all. Whether a priest ministering in the 1820s is likely to have spent much time in Paris basically depends on how old he is.

The choice of "Napoleon" is interesting. On the one hand, he might be seen as having rescued the French church from the horrors of the Revolution and the Terror, and as having helped to restore some stability to it. On the other hand, he tried to bring it under his own control. I would think Catholics in France at the time would have had very mixed feelings about Napoleon; certainly not unqualified admiration. In Britain, he was simply a bogeyman figure. Hard to know how he might have been perceived in rural Ireland. There wasn't any real republican/separatist movement with strong traction at this time; Catholic emancipation and, after that, Repeal were all the go, and I don't really see Napoleon being an inspirational figure for either movement.

We're also assuming that the baptismal name is chosen by the priest but, of course, this isn't normally the case. The most the priest usually gets to do is to veto a proposed name, usually on the grounds that it isn't Christian or biblical. Yet it's undeniably striking that there are several Napoleons in this register, and they're all illegitimate.

Jellybaby1

Well, Napoleon is indeed a strange named but it could have been worse I suppose. Found this if you feel like reading it. Other names could have been: Helpless, Forsaken, Repentance, or even Flie-fornication!! A better one could have been Fortune.

http://www.strangehistory.net/2015/06/15/bastard-names/

https://www.genealogy.com/articles/research/52_donna.html

kildarejohn

Vetch wrote: »

There are a number of atypical names listed for illegitimate children in this particular parish (also Clotilda, Carolina, Bonaparte, Luis). I could be wrong on this as I only had a quick look but the names don't seem to recur in later records such as marriage records and would wonder if these people were known by these names in their everyday lives. Most of the children marked illegitimate in the parish have very usual names.

Just a wild guess, but I wonder perhaps was the priest educated in a Catholic seminary in Europe and therefore chose these very European names. If the priest was heavily influenced by his contacts with French Catholics perhaps he was naming the babies after people he knew.

pinkypinky

Is there a common priest in all these cases?

Part of me still wishes there was a townland called Illegitimate.

Vetch

spurious wrote: »

There's also a 'Ferdinand' from Illegitimate in one of those pages.

There are a number of atypical names listed for illegitimate children in this particular parish (also Clotilda, Carolina, Bonaparte, Luis). I could be wrong on this as I only had a quick look but the names don't seem to recur in later records such as marriage records and would wonder if these people were known by these names in their everyday lives. Most of the children marked illegitimate in the parish have very usual names.

Leeside wrote: »

The father's name is also recorded for those girls given the name 'Matilda'. Interestingly the term 'bastard' is use for two of the baptisms so there can be no doubt what the intention of the priest was. Even though the father was known and his surname used, the priest wanted it to be known that the child was born out of wedlock. The names 'Nepoleon' (sic) and Matilda are so unusual for Inchigeelagh, the priest must have wanted the whole parish to be aware of the circumstances of the child's birth. I can't see any other explanation.

The whole parish almost certainly was already aware of the circumstances of the child's birth but, if they weren't, a notation in the parish register wasn't going to alert them to it.

I think the reason for this is that, back in the day, there were canonical consequences attached to illegitimacy. A man born illegitimate, for example, was not allowed to be be ordained a priest (without getting a dispensation from Rome). There may have been other consequences; I don't know. So this fact was noted in the baptism register because it might be signficant for canon law purposes later.

The fact that the fathers are named and the children are given the father's name makes me think that the parents were openly cohabiting, and the children were acknowledged. We tend to think of times past as extremely puritanical in matters of sex, but in fact this is to some extent a post-Famine tend in Ireland. In the earlier part of the nineteenth century attitudes were, relatively at any rate, a bit more relaxed. Cohabiting outside wedlock certainly attraced a degree of social disapprobation, and would have been ruinous to someone in the middle classes. But if you were a landless labourer, you had nothing to lose, and social disapprobation may not have been quite as big a concern for you.

Leeside wrote: »

...the priest must have wanted the whole parish to be aware of the circumstances of the child's birth...

Perhaps but I wonder would these records have been available for public scrutiny?

Leeside

The father's name is also recorded for those girls given the name 'Matilda'. Interestingly the term 'bastard' is use for two of the baptisms so there can be no doubt what the intention of the priest was. Even though the father was known and his surname used, the priest wanted it to be known that the child was born out of wedlock. The names 'Nepoleon' (sic) and Matilda are so unusual for Inchigeelagh, the priest must have wanted the whole parish to be aware of the circumstances of the child's birth. I can't see any other explanation.

https://churchrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/search.jsp?name2fm=&name2l=&namefm=matilda&namel=&location=iveleary&yyfrom=1810&yyto=1830&submit=Search&sort=&pageSize=100&diocese=CORK+%26+ROSS+%28RC%29&parish=IVELEARY&century=&decade=&ddBfrom=&ddMfrom=&ddDfrom=&mmBfrom=&mmMfrom=&mmDfrom=&yyBfrom=&yyMfrom=&yyDfrom=&ddBto=&ddMto=&ddDto=&mmBto=&mmMto=&mmDto=&yyBto=&yyMto=&yyDto=&locationB=&locationM=&locationD=&member0=&member1=&member2=&member3=&member4=&member5=&member6=&member7=&member8=&member9=&namef0=&namef1=&namef2=&namef3=&namef4=&namef5=&namef6=&namef7=&namef8=&namef9=&namel0=&namel1=&namel2=&namel3=&namel4=&namel5=&namel6=&namel7=&namel8=&namel9=&keyword=&event=

spurious

There's also a 'Ferdinand' from Illegitimate in one of those pages.

pedroeibar1

srmf5 wrote: »

That's the only way that I would interpret illegitimate as well. I suppose that there only seems to be three cases in that time period so it's not a large number and the three fathers must have acknowledged the child as theirs. If the father didn't, I know that there have been cases from other posts where the priest would have a note written of who the father was supposed to have been. It reminds me of Game of Thrones such as giving all illegitimate children in the north the surname Snow. We know for royalty that the surname Fitzroy was sometimes given in real life.

Crossed posts with you smrf.
The Duke of Clarence (later William IV) had a long relationship with the actress Mrs. Jordan (nee Dorothy Bland) who bore him many children. All of them took the surname FitzClarence. David Cameron is one descendant and the last Duke of Munster who died quite recently was another.

pedroeibar1

Agreed Hermy. If the parents were not married and the father acknowledged the infant child his name was used as a surname, if not it generally bore the mothers surname. I've not encountered the link of the names with illegitimacy.
The 1941 novel 'An Béal Bocht' by Brian O'Nuallain (Flann O'Brien) is a memoir of one Bónapárt Ó Cúnasa. The Bonaparte name is also linked to the Wyse family of Waterford, where one of them married a niece of the emperor and that branch of the family continued as Bonaparte-Wyse.

That's the only way that I would interpret illegitimate as well. I suppose that there only seems to be three cases in that time period so it's not a large number and the three fathers must have acknowledged the child as theirs. If the father didn't, I know that there have been cases from other posts where the priest would have a note written of who the father was supposed to have been. It reminds me of Game of Thrones such as giving all illegitimate children in the north the surname Snow. We know for royalty that the surname Fitzroy was sometimes given in real life.

I've often seen baptisms where the father is named but the child is recorded as illegitimate and just take it to mean the child was born out of wedlock.

Illegitimate is written where the address should be recorded. There's hardly a townland in the area that looks like illegitimate and people from the same townland just happened to love the name Napoleon? It does look like illegitimate though but as said it's interesting that all have the father's name recorded.

If it's the case that boys were named Napoleon and girls Matilda, the girls got off much more lightly since Matilda wouldn't have been nearly as uncommon.

pinkypinky

It's unusual to see the father named in the case of illegitimate children but both parents are clear in this case. Each child is given their father's surname too.

The 3 years are just after Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo (with apologies to all who now have the song stuck in their head), though he was dead by the latter 2 births.

Leeside

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don;t think these children were illegitimate; they are all the children of named fathers and they are given their fathers' surnames.

I think what has happened is that the addresses in the register are illegible, and the transcription of the records this has inadvertently been rendered as "illegitimate", possibly through the slapdash use of drop-down menu.

Nor am I convinced that these children were named "Nepoleon". Again, I smell transcription errors!

The church records clearly state that the children were illegitimate. I also don't see any transcription error in the first name.

It would appear that female illegitimate children were given the name 'Matilda'.

My guess is that the priest gave the name Matilda and the name Nepoleon when the parents disowned the child at birth and did not wish to name him/her.

I don;t think these children were illegitimate; they are all the children of named fathers and they are given their fathers' surnames.

I think what has happened is that the addresses in the register are illegible, and the transcription of the records this has inadvertently been rendered as "illegitimate", possibly through the slapdash use of drop-down menu.

Nor am I convinced that these children were named "Nepoleon". Again, I smell transcription errors!

Leeside

I wonder what's the story behind naming illegitimate children 'Nepoleon'. This first name was given only three times in Iveleary (Inchigeelagh), each time to an illegitmate child.

https://churchrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/search.jsp?namefm=nepoleon&namel=&location=iveleary&yyfrom=&yyto=&submit=Search

I wonder did the priest have something to do with it. The children surely can't have found it easy living in a rural area with that name - marked as illegitimate for life.

kildarejohn

srmf5 wrote: »

I found two newspaper articles of a description of Robert Armstrong's eviction. .

Mr. Armstrong's story seems to be full of "funny/unusual" aspects. Did anyone notice the name of the signatory of the summons?-
Attachment not found.

I found two newspaper articles of a description of Robert Armstrong's eviction. In another article he was a member of the United Irish League and described as a 'Protestant Home Ruler and evicted tenant' in 1900. I've attached the two articles on his eviction for anyone who's interested.

Edit: His eviction seems to have occurred in 1888. His occupation was gentleman when he married in 1884.

I know nothing about them - I came by it quite by accident while looking for a different Armstrong who was present at a death in Longford - but like you the reference to eviction caught my eye.

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

That is a brilliant find Hermy! At first I thought you were talking about all the Do's, then I saw the right hand column, but then I noticed the occupation. I have never ever heard any mention of non-RC evictions as I was always led to believe it was only the very poor RC tenants who were evicted. Any other references you know of?

I could only find one birth record for the couple and it was for Noble Armstrong baptised in 1896 in Church of Ireland. The address was Kenagh (not far from Kilcommock) in Longford and the father was a farmer at the time. I don't see the family in 1911. Also interesting that one of the sons was named William O'Brien Armstrong.

Edit: The civil births are available for all the children but I could only find one baptism that was online. Robert was still a farmer living in Kenagh in 1898 when the last child was born.

Jellybaby1

Hermy wrote: »

I think this might belong in here.

That is a brilliant find Hermy! At first I thought you were talking about all the Do's, then I saw the right hand column, but then I noticed the occupation. I have never ever heard any mention of non-RC evictions as I was always led to believe it was only the very poor RC tenants who were evicted. Any other references you know of?