Latin translation help

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

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."

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

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.

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.

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 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?

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)

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