RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Pennines on Wednesday 18 September 24 16:15 BST (UK)
-
I have attached a Parish Register of a marriage at St Nicholas in Liverpool in 1826.
This is for a John Leadbeater (or variant) - parents James and Mary - nee 'Donolly'.
The entry includes the word 'Conj' - indicating that these parents were a married couple.
Does anyone know if priests sought proof of marriage BEFORE stating 'Conj' on a baptism, please?
I ask because I have NEVER found a marriage of James Leadbeatter/Leadbetter etc to Mary Donnolly/Donnelly etc.
James was from Scotland and Mary from Ireland or Liverpool -- (I suspect Ireland - but after 1841 census, she shows Liverpool on census records.)
-
Before statutory registration, of course. What kind of proof could be offered? If the couple were married elsewhere in England or Scotland or Ireland, there might only be a parish register entry for the marriage. Who is going to check, and how, if the couple insist they are married ?
-
No I don't think they needed to show proof of marriage at that time. The vicar just took their words for it.
-
Thank you greenrig and coombs for your reply and thoughts.
So basically the Priest just believed the parents (who, of course weren't supposed to tell untruths, especially in the R.C. faith!)
Actually, I had assumed (and we should never 'assume' should we!) - that they may have a 'marriage' paper issued - much like a baptismal certificate was issued at R.C. baptisms.
-
Maybe the marrying priest issued some certificate. But you could just say it was lost, or never issued. Maybe the man, or woman, registering the birth was not the same person as on such a certificate anyway. There was no concept then of proof of identity. Simpler times, and much taken on trust. Who would risk lying to a priest? If they said they were married, then they probably were.
-
But that isn't a marriage, is it.
It is a baptism.
-
Assuming that they had married in a Catholic church then any record of such a marriage might be difficult to find as not all Catholic church records are in the public domain. As Liverpool drew in people from Ireland and the North-West and beyond as it grew at that time, the place of any such marriage becomes even more problematic. The, as now, it was customary to marry at the bride's church, so that is where I would start, but you probably have already gone down that road.
jds1949
-
Thank you all, when I realised the word 'Conj' was on the baptism of the child - it just made me wonder if the Priest sought evidence of marriage from the parents before stating that.
I know my RC Mother in Law had a baptismal certificate - so it came to me that a similar document may have been issued for RC marriages.
Not something I had thought about before, as this couple (the parents) have been a brick wall for years prior to their children's baptisms.
I was clutching at straws!!
-
A Roman Catholic priest would not just take the parent's word that they were married in the Catholic faith. If they were from a different parish, they would need to provide some documentation from the parish where they married. If the parents were not married, a note of illegitimate (or natural child) would be noted on the baptismal record.
The priests received remuneration for performing the sacraments, so you can be assured that the priest would check to see if there was a marriage, if only to get the benefit of performing two sacraments.
-
I have previously researched an Irish family who arrived in Liverpool around 1856 and had a son baptised at St Anthony's on Scotland Road and the baptism register says they were 'conj' although they didn't actually marry in the Liverpool Register Office until a year later. That said, they already had a daughter born in Dublin in 1855, so maybe the priest was more inclined to accept their word that they were married. Interestingly the baptisms of their later children were conducted in a different Catholic church nearby, even though they remained at same address.
I have also seen Catholic baptismal registration for a baby girl where the priest has later noted in the margin the details of her marriage in another parish, which implies that the officiating priest at the marriage had checked up on the bride.
-
I might have missed something here, but RC marriages were not legal in England until 1836. In fact I don’t think there were any RC churches operating legally until then.
I have a branch in Manchester which I am almost certain was Irish Catholic and arrived in the 1790’s. Baptisms, marriages, and deaths were found in C of E records, but after 1836 a few went back to baptizing their children at the RC church in Manchester.
-
You are right, I think, Diana but this is a baptism record. However it does record that the parents are married - ‘conj’ and ‘olim’ for Mary’s maiden name.
Pennines
You may be aware of this but there was a later baptism for John Leadbeater. The record you have posted has been corrected and does look to be ‘Joannes’ and ‘filius’ - John and son.
There is a baptism, 14th February 1830, with a birthdate 17th July 1829 with the same details.
This implies that the first John died and the later child named for him although I don’t see a death for him.
There is a death recorded for the child, Jesse, who was baptised in 1832 - records show ‘filia’ , daughter.
The transcript of the burial in ‘ England, Select Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991’ shows ‘male’.
-
The restriction was only on marriages, and date is actually 1 July 1837, the introduction of civil registration. Before that marriages could only be conducted in the C. of E. and a few small groups including Jews and Quakers. After that marriages could take place in a registered church on the basis of "the registrar attended".
-
A Roman Catholic priest would not just take the parent's word that they were married in the Catholic faith. If they were from a different parish, they would need to provide some documentation from the parish where they married. If the parents were not married, a note of illegitimate (or natural child) would be noted on the baptismal record.
The priests received remuneration for performing the sacraments, so you can be assured that the priest would check to see if there was a marriage, if only to get the benefit of performing two sacraments.
But surely that became impractical to check, especially with Irish immigration to GB or further afield? Especially in some cases since RC registers were not even properly kept or curated in 19th C Ireland.
-
Thank you everyone for your thoughts.
Heywood - yes, I did have the baptism of a second John Leadbeatter born to James and Mary.
I never found his burial either and on my tree I have simply inserted 'before 1829' as the date.
I've completely given up on finding a marriage for the parents!
-
Just my two penn'orth worth here -
If you know where in Ireland the mother was from and can find her baptism *some* of the parish priests actually recorded next to their baptism the name, date and place their marriage took place. A real gift to find.
And - in terms of not locating a marriage for the couple, possibly in Ireland. The survival rate of parish records for Irish RC is really variable, and they might have some marriage registers in the parish but only for certain dates. It's a mine field.
There was no civil registration for Catholics in Ireland until 1864.
I would still go on the likelihood they married.
CD
-
Thank you.
Unfortunately I don't know where the bride was born -- Liverpool or Ireland and I suspect Ireland.
The groom states he was born in Scotland - but is NOT the James Leadbeatter baptised in Peebles in 1804. That one joined the Army and returned to Scotland.
My James was in Liverpool - Lancaster - Keighley - Dalton and Barrow in Furness!
His name and occupation always amused me - Leadbeatter - and he was a Tinman and Brazier.
This couple's origins will just have to remain a mystery. (I revisit them now and again, just to bang my head against that brick wall!)
-
The practice of adding a note of marriage to the baptism came about with the introduction of Ne Temere Decree in 1908
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35103
-
Oh Sinann -- how very interesting. Thank you so much for the link.
(Every day is a school day!)
-
Thanks from me too, Sinann.
I knew these records were far too early for the practice but have seen several examples.
My father’s baptism record in 1907 is available on line and it is annotated with his marriage to my mother in England thirty years later.
-
The thanks really goes to someone else here on RootsChat who posted about this some years ago but sadly I can’t remember who that was.
I got interrupted earlier, I was planning to say look at point 5 all marriages must be registered in the place or places where the contracting parties were baptised.
So clearly if you marry in your home parish the marriage will be in the marriage register but if you marry in some other parish the best place to ‘register’ it in your home parish is on your baptism record.
-
I assumed that the priest who married my parents contacted the birth parish for ‘proof’ but maybe it was my dad who had to register or get the evidence.
It was likely Maiden Stone who posted the information some years ago.
-
Sinann's link is very interesting but it doesn't answer Pennines's question about whether a priest is supposed to check if the parents were validly married (presumably in the Catholic faith) before baptising one of their children.
-
I can't help but think that this question is somewhat anachronistic.
The date of the baptism is 1826. Consider that at that time:
- The modern postal system was still in the future. No stamps, though there was a post office.
- The Catholic Church was still, in effect, an illegal organization. This affected record keeping. No records in many parishes.
- No Catholic directories to look up priests/addresses.
- Did Catholic priests perform marriages in England in this period? Technically "illegal" of course, but did they? In which case did they keep records? Catholic priests in Ireland did perform supposedly "illegal" marriages.
- I doubt those married were routinely given any written certificate? Even if they got one, would they keep it, as most people were illiterate anyway.
- Modern requirements about notifying parish of baptism, etc. were far in the future (as Sinann has reminded us).
-
I assumed that the priest who married my parents contacted the birth parish for ‘proof’ but maybe it was my dad who had to register or get the evidence.
It was likely Maiden Stone who posted the information some years ago.
I married in my husband’s parish so I had to contact my home parish to get a Letter of Freedom (your should get one from every parish you lived in more than six months since you were 18), it was probably the same or similar in your father’s time.
-
Sinann's link is very interesting but it doesn't answer Pennines's question about whether a priest is supposed to check if the parents were validly married (presumably in the Catholic faith) before baptising one of their children.
Unless they were married in a parish close to the baptism, it would be near impossible to check.
I would imagine the priest would accept their word as baptism was perhaps more important.
-
Sinann's link is very interesting but it doesn't answer Pennines's question about whether a priest is supposed to check if the parents were validly married (presumably in the Catholic faith) before baptising one of their children.
Here is a link to an early 20th century Catholic encyclopedia entry on baptism. I see no mention of any necessity for the parents to be married. Indeed why would there be - no salvation for illegitimate children?
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm)