RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => London and Middlesex => England => London & Middlesex Lookup Requests => Topic started by: BrianClaydon on Friday 28 March 25 09:05 GMT (UK)
-
Hello everyone,
I'm not sure this is the right place to post - apologies if it is not. It is regarding a direct line ancestor who was apparently born in Cork Ireland. Her name was Margaret Walsh, born around 1821. I believe she was Roman Catholic and probably married an Edmund D'arcy [1829-1884. Master Bootmaker] possibly around 1846. They lived in the Middlesex region of London from about 1855 until her death sometime before 1866. Edmund continued living in the area and had more children with another lady - whom I believe he only civilly married almost on his deathbed.
I cannot find an RC or Civil marriage for them so far. My question though is this: If a couple married in an RC church, and not in an Anglican one or at a registry office, Would her death registration show D'arcy [Or Darcy/Darcey] or her maiden name of Walsh?
Many thanks for viewing my post, and any help you can offer.
Brian
-
Just a note which may be relevant.
I have come across a "Walsh" of Irish Catholic descent, whose earlier spelling in Ireland was "Welsh".
-
Hi MollyC,
thank you for your post. That is very true. One of the two registrations of birth for her children in England had the name 'Welsh' recorded.
B
-
A death registered in England or Wales will be under the name the person was known by.
Or, more likely, the name the informant knew them by. ;)
-
Brian, looking at the 1861 census the Daughter Margaret was born 1845, do you have her birth cert naming a father. Possible birth
D'ORSY, MARGARET -
GRO Reference: 1845 M Quarter in SAINT PANCRAS Volume 01 Page 259
SS
-
A death registered in England or Wales will be under the name the person was known by.
Or, more likely, the name the informant knew them by. ;)
Thank you KGarrad, that is very useful. Chances are she would be recorded as a D'arcy then.
B
-
Brian, looking at the 1861 census the Daughter Margaret was born 1845, do you have her birth cert naming a father.
D'ORSY, MARGARET -
GRO Reference: 1845 M Quarter in SAINT PANCRAS Volume 01 Page 259
SS
Hi Softly Softly,
thank you very much. I've been trawling the GRO for that registration, and two of her siblings for some time now with no success. I have the last two registrations of her children - Thomas & John Valentine, but Margaret, Edward & James have eluded me. This is really useful as I thought they didn't arrive in England until about 1855 based on the Reg. date of Thomas. This probably pushes back their arrival by at least a decade.
I will hop on the GRO website and see what I can find... thanks again.
B
-
Only posting this as possible birth of child taken from 1861 census.
If parents did not marry children may have Walsh/Welsh surname.
WALSH, JAMES - No Mother's maiden name
GRO Reference: 1853 M Quarter in MARYLEBONE Volume 01A Page 355
SS
-
Some catholic baptisms indexed at Soho Square, St Patrick (I don't have access) :-\
Parents Edmund/Edward and Maria/Marie/Mary Welsh (Walsh)
Mother not Margaret
As they are indexed
1843 Jacobus Darcy
1846, born 1845 Edmundus Darcey
1851 Margaret D'Arey
1853 Jacobus D'Arcy
1855 Thomas D'Arcy
1862, born 1861 John Valentine D'Arcy
Edmund Darcy, 30, a shoemaker, in the newspapers in 1854. Also his brother Michael.
-
Outside possibility in Marylebone in 1851?
Indexed as Debry. Edward may be a shoemaker?
Wife Mary. Son Edward
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SGT8-ZCY
Dobry on ancestry (1486 / 827 / 76)
-
Birth
DARCY, MARGARET
Mother's Maiden Surname: WELSH
GRO Reference: 1851 D Quarter in MARYLEBONE Volume 01 Page 153
-
So in 1861 should mum Margaret be Mary? :-\
Are the ages of the two eldest children, Margaret and Edward, the wrong way round?
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M7LL-41R
-
Only posting this as possible birth of child taken from 1861 census.
If parents did not marry children may have Walsh/Welsh surname.
WALSH, JAMES - No Mother's maiden name
GRO Reference: 1853 M Quarter in MARYLEBONE Volume 01A Page 355
SS
Thank you Softly Softly,
that is a possibility.
b
-
Only posting this as possible birth of child taken from 1861 census.
If parents did not marry children may have Walsh/Welsh surname.
WALSH, JAMES - No Mother's maiden name
GRO Reference: 1853 M Quarter in MARYLEBONE Volume 01A Page 355
SS
Thank you Softly Softly,
that is a possibility.
b
Forget--not yours.
SS
-
Some catholic baptisms indexed at Soho Square, St Patrick (I don't have access) :-\
Parents Edmund/Edward and Maria/Marie/Mary Welsh (Walsh)
Mother not Margaret
As they are indexed
1843 Jacobus Darcy
1846, born 1845 Edmundus Darcey
1851 Margaret D'Arey
1853 Jacobus D'Arcy
1855 Thomas D'Arcy
1862, born 1861 John Valentine D'Arcy
Edmund Darcy, 30, a shoemaker, in the newspapers in 1854. Also his brother Michael.
Thank you Jonwarrn, that looks to be right. May I ask how you located that info? I am really new (and a bit rubbish) at dealing with my Irish and RC ancestors. Any pointers would be welcome.
B
-
So in 1861 should mum Margaret be Mary? :-\
Are the ages of the two eldest children, Margaret and Edward, the wrong way round?
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:M7LL-41R
Hi Jonwarrn,
I have a copy of John Valentine D'arcy's birth which states 'Margaret Walsh' as his mother. Before that I had 'Mary' as his mother's name as all the stuff on ancestry was indicating that was so. It appears a lot of the census for the D'arcy family is a bit suspect. Not sure if it was captured incorrectly, or whether they were not completely forthcoming with the correct info. Thanks.
B
-
Hi
The baptisms are on findmypast, England Roman Catholic Parish Baptisms.
I only have access to full transcriptions and images at a library.
The free index is very useful though. All but two of the D'Arcys were born in the same year of baptism.
Mary / Margaret is a bit of a conundrum.
-
Hi all,
Thomas and John Valentine D'arcy were registered at St James, Westminster and Bloomsbury respectively. A little more background - Edmund was a master shoe and bootmaker. They had 2 shops one in Conduit Court and another in 'the Cut'.
-
OP,
You should click on 'Report to Moderator' and ask for this thread to be moved to the 'London & Middlesex' sub-forum.
-
Hi
The baptisms are on findmypast, England Roman Catholic Parish Baptisms.
I only have access to full transcriptions and images at a library.
The free index is very useful though. All but two of the D'Arcys were born in the same year of baptism.
Mary / Margaret is a bit of a conundrum.
Thank you very much for clarifying. Perhaps she was a Mary Margaret, or the other way 'round.
B
-
OP,
You should click on 'Report to Moderator' and ask for this thread to be moved to the 'London & Middlesex' sub-forum.
Will do. Thank you for the advice.
B
-
Are the ages of the two eldest children, Margaret and Edward, the wrong way round?
Yes, I think so
D'ARCY, EDMUND
Mother's Maiden Surname: WALCH
GRO Reference: 1846 M Quarter in SAINT PANCRAS Volume 01 Page 364
-
Will do. Thank you for the advice.
You're very welcome :)
Good Luck
-
1851 census? ref 1486 827 76--Newman Passage, Marylebone, London & Middlesex, England
Edward Debry Head Married Male 26 1825 Shoe maker Ireland
Mary Debry Wife Married Female 29 1822 - Ireland
Edward Debry Son Unmarried Male 5 1846 - Middlesex, England
SS
-
1851 census? ref 1486 827 76--Newman Passage, Marylebone, London & Middlesex, England
Edward Debry Head Married Male 26 1825 Shoe maker Ireland
Mary Debry Wife Married Female 29 1822 - Ireland
Edward Debry Son Unmarried Male 5 1846 - Middlesex, England
SS
Softly Softly,
you star! Been looking for Census records before '61 for them for ages. It always surprises me when you see how quickly others can put their hands on the right material when it has been so elusive to yourself. Not sure how you turned that one up, but thank you very much! Found it on 'Ancestry' under the name 'Edward Dobry'.
B
-
I posted that 1851 census in Reply #9
-
I posted that 1851 census in Reply #9
You did indeed, I missed that--sorry, credit goes to you.
SS
-
We can share it ;D
-
We can share it ;D
Apologies Jonwarrn,
I missed that amongst all the other helpful replies. Thank you both very much, you have been extremely helpful and given me much to sink my teeth in to.
I'm going to close the post now as my question has been answered and I have been gifted even more than expected.
Thanks to everyone who took the time to read my post, and particularly to those that posted. A great community.
B
-
I cannot find an RC or Civil marriage for them so far. My question though is this: If a couple married in an RC church, and not in an Anglican one or at a registry office, Would her death registration show D'arcy [Or Darcy/Darcey] or her maiden name of Walsh?
An amazing question, which I don't see answered. Her married name, of course.
-
I cannot find an RC or Civil marriage for them so far. My question though is this: If a couple married in an RC church, and not in an Anglican one or at a registry office, Would her death registration show D'arcy [Or Darcy/Darcey] or her maiden name of Walsh?
An amazing question, which I don't see answered. Her married name, of course.
Hi Wexflyer,
thank you for your post. I am intrigued as to why you consider this 'an amazing' question? As I stated, I know little of my RC ancestors and how the law applied to them. As to whether it had been answered, I think someone kindly did that on page 1.
Overnight research has indicated that marriages performed after 1836 in a Catholic Church were considered legally binding. Before that however the Catholic service either had to have an Anglican clergyman present, or another service had to be conducted at an Anglican Church to confer legal status to the marriage in the English courts. This is why I enquired whether the married name would be legally recognised when the death was registered - particularly as I did not know the date of their probable RC marriage.
Is it amazing that I was unaware of the date of 1836, and the changes it conferred? Or something else? It appears your historical knowledge is greater than mine and I apologise for my apparent deficiency.
Regards,
Brian
-
1. Both the husband and wife were from Ireland. There never was any legal inhibition on Catholic marriages in Ireland, so no issue arises if married there.
2. You stated that your Edmund/Edward D'Arcy was born ca. 1829. Consequently, he was only about 7 years old when the marriage law in England changed in 1836. An impossibly young age, so no issue arises if married in England either - as must have been long after 1836.
3. It was and is the case that you can change your name at will, no marriage required. So if she called herself D'Arcy, then whether there was a marriage or what sort is really irrelevant.
-
1. Both the bride and groom were from Ireland. There never was any legal inhibition on Catholic marriages in Ireland, so no issue arises.
2. You stated that your Edmund/Edward D'Arcy was born ca. 1829. Consequently, he was only about 7 years old when the marriage law in England changed in 1836. An impossibly young age, so no issue arises.
3. Catholic marriages were of course fully valid in cannon law. I doubt a Catholic would care about the English civil law position. After all, it was and is the case that you can change your name at will, no marriage required in any case.
Hi Wexflyer,
thanks for your response. So I guess it was my lack of knowledge about the 1836 law change that you considered 'Amazing'. Perhaps you could help me then with some further clarification to your 3 points.
1. If another couple had married in a RC church in Ireland before 1836 without an Anglican priest present, and moved to England, would their marriage be seen as legally binding in an English court? I may be wrong, but my research suggests not.
2. The information I provided regarding Edmund's birth was based on 3 Census records and his death registration, none of which concur on his date of birth. With the kind help of people on this forum I have located 2 more Census records attributed to him and none of them have the same DOB either. The first one pushes his DOB back to 1821. He may even be older than that. That aside, as I expressed earlier I was 'amazingly' unaware yesterday of the significance of the law change in 1836.
3. You state that you 'doubt a Catholic would care about the English Civil Law position', but from what I understand, and I could well be wrong, one of the reasons the new law was enacted was to provide protection to RC women whose husbands had left them, and who had little recourse with the English justice system.
3b. You state that 'After all it was and is the case that you can change your name at will, no marriage required in any case'. I would therefore kindly suggest that your first answer is technically incorrect and the one kindly provide by 'KGarrad' on page 1 of this thread is correct. They stated 'A death registered in England or Wales will be under the name the person was known by.
Or, more likely, the name the informant knew them by.'
Regards, Brian
-
I don't think we have found a marriage, nor so far a death for Mary / Margaret D'Arcy.
Francis was baptised in 1867 (born 1866) with mother apparently Joanna O'Day.
If in fact Edmund and M were not married (we don't know), could her death have been registered as Welsh (or similar)?
Another birth?
D'ARCY, WILLIAM
Mother's Maiden Surname: WELCH
GRO Reference: 1849 M Quarter in ST GILES IN THE FIELDS & ST GEORGE BLOOMSBURY Volume 01 Page 63
Is there a death/burial for him in St Giles?
-
I don't think we have found a marriage, nor so far a death for Mary / Margaret D'Arcy.
Francis was baptised in 1867 (born 1866) with mother apparently Joanna O'Day.
If in fact Edmund and M were not married (we don't know), could her death have been registered as Welsh (or similar)?
Another birth?
D'ARCY, WILLIAM
Mother's Maiden Surname: WELCH
GRO Reference: 1849 M Quarter in ST GILES IN THE FIELDS & ST GEORGE BLOOMSBURY Volume 01 Page 63
Is there a death/burial for him in St Giles?
Hi Jonwarrn,
thanks for your response. After the wonderful contributions yesterday from the good folk of Rootschat I was able to find an 1841 Census featuring 'Edward Da Darcy' learning his shoemaking trade in Brick Lane, Whitechapel, Middlesex on 'Ancestry'. I had seen it before but the DOB (1821) looked a bit 'iffy'. However, as none of the ages match up on the 5 census records and Death Reg I am willing to believe it is correct. This coupled with all the other discrepancies on the census records lead me to believe he either had a very strong accent that was difficult to understand, or that he deliberately was obfuscating. I think due to other circumstances of his life, the latter is probably true. His second 'wife' Joanna was apparently either his cousin (or some have suggested, but I have not been able to corroborate) his niece.
The further information then opened the door to a possible marriage in Ireland from 1842:
Name: Edmond Day
Gender: Male
Event Type: Marriage
Marriage Date: 2 Jul 1842
Marriage Place: Imogeela, Ireland, Ireland
Residence Place: C Martyn
Parish Variant:s Castlemartyr
Diocese: Cloyne
Spouse: Mary Walsh
I have found a death registration for a Mary Walsh which looks about the right age. I cant lay my fingers on it right now, but I think it was about 1864, with an estimated birth year of 1821 which is about right. Joanna's first child appears to be Frank 'Francis' Henry D'arcy in 1866, so that could work.
I hadn't seen that William reg. before, but it looks a possibility and worth checking out, thank you.
B
-
I was able to find an 1841 Census featuring 'Edward Da Darcy' learning his shoemaking trade in Brick Lane, Whitechapel, Middlesex on 'Ancestry'. I had seen it before but the DOB (1821) looked a bit 'iffy'.
Don't forget that in the 1841 census the ages of over 15 years olds were rounded down to the nearest five years.
So someone entered as 20 years old could in fact have been 24 years old.
-
I was able to find an 1841 Census featuring 'Edward Da Darcy' learning his shoemaking trade in Brick Lane, Whitechapel, Middlesex on 'Ancestry'. I had seen it before but the DOB (1821) looked a bit 'iffy'.
Don't forget that in the 1841 census the ages of over 15 years olds were rounded down to the nearest five years.
So someone entered as 20 years old could in fact have been 24 years old.
Hi JenB,
I had heard that, but had forgotten it! Thank you for the reminder. If for arguments sake he was 15 or 16 at the time (which I think is more likely) would that have been rounded to 20?
B
Sorry, got the sniffles and a thick head at present. You did state 'rounded down' rather than up. Please ignore that question!
-
Hi
It's a very good find for 1841.
Though it does perhaps make that marriage possibility in 1842 in Ireland less likely (without ruling it out)
As to age, the Edmund Darcy, shoemaker, who was acquited at the Middlesex Sessions in April 1854 was 30 according to the newspapers. May not be right of course. That chap had a brother Michael, who seems to have been the naughty person!
-
Hi
It's a very good find for 1841.
Though it does perhaps make that marriage possibility in 1842 in Ireland less likely (without ruling it out)
As to age, the Edmund Darcy, shoemaker, who was acquited at the Middlesex Sessions in April 1854 was 30 according to the newspapers. May not be right of course. That chap had a brother Michael, who seems to have been the naughty person!
Hi,
I agree that the 1841 record does call the marriage record in Ireland into question - but as you say, doesn't rule it out. Particularly as there seems a little money attached to the family which presumably makes them a little more mobile than some. The other thing about the marriage is that Edmund is recorded as 'Edmond Day'. Joanna his second wife (cousin? Niece?) had the maiden name of 'Ody' or O'Day'. Coincidence? Possibly.
The age of 30 in 1854 seems very possible. looking at all the dates provided by Edmund in the Census, that falls in about the middle. I have a feeling though that he may not have always provided accurate info. Understandable distrust of the English state, perhaps.
I had seen that a possible for Edmund had been acquited of serious bodily harm, if that is what you are referring to? Haven't seen any newspaper reports as I don't have a sub at the moment. Didn't know about Michael as a possible brother so that may be a lead for affirming correct parentage to Edmund. Thank you.
Bests,
B
-
Hi
I can't attach the article because this is a look up board.
If you are registered with findmypast as a free member, and logged in, you can see it in a couple of newspapers without having to have a current sub
i.e.
https://www.findmypast.co.uk/image-viewer?issue=BL%2F0002582%2F18540415&page=5&article=047&stringtohighlight=edmund+darcy
-
Hi
I can't attach the article because this is a look up board.
If you are registered with findmypast as a free member, and logged in, you can see it in a couple of newspapers without having to have a current sub
i.e.
https://www.findmypast.co.uk/image-viewer?issue=BL%2F0002582%2F18540415&page=5&article=047&stringtohighlight=edmund+darcy
Got it!
Thank you very much. I agree Michael doesn't sound very pleasant if he kicks people in the head when they are on the floor!
-
Is there any sign of a Michael about?
Some more info from those D'Arcy baptisms, I am not great at reading the names of the sponsors
Jacobus, born 14 February 1843, sponsors Jacobus Brown, Carolina Darcy(?)
Edmundus, born 11 December 1845, Jacobus Darcy, Catharine Moran(?)
Margaret (something is written under Margaret), born 12 July 1851, William D'Arcy, Mary Macnaughton (or-en)
Jacobus, born 3 June 1853, Jacobus Darcy, Joanna Oday
Thomas, born 6 November 1855, Patrick OBrien (or Brien?), Ellen Driscoll
John Valentine, born 29 January 1861, Gulielmus Darcy, Catherina Darcy
-
1. If another couple had married in a RC church in Ireland before 1836 without an Anglican priest present, and moved to England, would their marriage be seen as legally binding in an English court? I may be wrong, but my research suggests not.
Completely incorrect.
2. The information I provided regarding Edmund's birth was based on 3 Census records and his death registration, none of which concur on his date of birth. With the kind help of people on this forum I have located 2 more Census records attributed to him and none of them have the same DOB either. The first one pushes his DOB back to 1821. He may even be older than that. That aside, as I expressed earlier I was 'amazingly' unaware yesterday of the significance of the law change in 1836.
I can only go by what you tell us, and you told us 1829.
3. You state that you 'doubt a Catholic would care about the English Civil Law position', but from what I understand, and I could well be wrong, one of the reasons the new law was enacted was to provide protection to RC women whose husbands had left them, and who had little recourse with the English justice system.
3b. You state that 'After all it was and is the case that you can change your name at will, no marriage required in any case'. I would therefore kindly suggest that your first answer is technically incorrect and the one kindly provide by 'KGarrad' on page 1 of this thread is correct. They stated 'A death registered in England or Wales will be under the name the person was known by.
Or, more likely, the name the informant knew them by.'
a. Rather proving my contention that Catholics would simply ignore the law.
b. KGarrad simply stated what might be put on the registration in the case she was known as D'Arcy. He/she said nothing about the rest of what you posted - CofE vs Registry Office Vs Catholic marriage, and all the rest of the context you gave.
-
The further information then opened the door to a possible marriage in Ireland from 1842:
Name: Edmond Day
Gender: Male
Event Type: Marriage
Marriage Date: 2 Jul 1842
Marriage Place: Imogeela, Ireland, Ireland
Residence Place: C Martyn
Parish Variant:s Castlemartyr
Diocese: Cloyne
Spouse: Mary Walsh
No, this couple isn't yours.
In cases like this you should always check to see if the couple remained in the location of origin - Castlemartyr, Co. Cork in this case. And they did. This couple had multiple chiltren in Castlemartyr from 1843-1850.
-
Registrations of Birth, Marriage and Death are informant led.
The Registrar, or Ecclesiastical Minister, simply writes down what he/she is told, Or, more likely, what they heard.
No proof was ever asked for.
And it is still the case that a person can call themselves anything they like - just as long as it isn't for the purposes of fraud or deceit. ;)
-
1. If another couple had married in a RC church in Ireland before 1836 without an Anglican priest present, and moved to England, would their marriage be seen as legally binding in an English court? I may be wrong, but my research suggests not.
Completely incorrect.
2. The information I provided regarding Edmund's birth was based on 3 Census records and his death registration, none of which concur on his date of birth. With the kind help of people on this forum I have located 2 more Census records attributed to him and none of them have the same DOB either. The first one pushes his DOB back to 1821. He may even be older than that. That aside, as I expressed earlier I was 'amazingly' unaware yesterday of the significance of the law change in 1836.
I can only go by what you tell us, and you told us 1829.
3. You state that you 'doubt a Catholic would care about the English Civil Law position', but from what I understand, and I could well be wrong, one of the reasons the new law was enacted was to provide protection to RC women whose husbands had left them, and who had little recourse with the English justice system.
3b. You state that 'After all it was and is the case that you can change your name at will, no marriage required in any case'. I would therefore kindly suggest that your first answer is technically incorrect and the one kindly provide by 'KGarrad' on page 1 of this thread is correct. They stated 'A death registered in England or Wales will be under the name the person was known by.
Or, more likely, the name the informant knew them by.'
a. Rather proving my contention that Catholics would simply ignore the law.
b. KGarrad simply stated what might be put on the registration in the case she was known as D'Arcy. He/she said nothing about the rest of what you posted - CofE vs Registry Office Vs Catholic marriage, and all the rest of the context you gave.
Thanks for your thoughts.
-
Is there any sign of a Michael about?
Some more info from those D'Arcy baptisms, I am not great at reading the names of the sponsors
Jacobus, born 14 February 1843, sponsors Jacobus Brown, Carolina Darcy(?)
Edmundus, born 11 December 1845, Jacobus Darcy, Catharine Moran(?)
Margaret (something is written under Margaret), born 12 July 1851, William D'Arcy, Mary Macnaughton (or-en)
Jacobus, born 3 June 1853, Jacobus Darcy, Joanna Oday
Thomas, born 6 November 1855, Patrick OBrien (or Brien?), Ellen Driscoll
John Valentine, born 29 January 1861, Gulielmus Darcy, Catherina Darcy
Thanks again Jonwarrn,
I appreciate the info. I've not had any great experience or success so far with my Catholic and Irish ancestors. It's new land to me, so this kind of info and how to obtain it is really appreciated. I haven't managed to look on this branch further back than Edmund. This is my mother's side of the family and something I've only started on this year.
The two new census readings and finds of birth registrations for his first children has been hugely helpful. Also the possibility of Michael as a brother is a new and exciting find. I was originally hoping that if I could find out more about Mary/Margaret Walsh it would open more up about Edmund. The information people have given around the first point of questioning has been fantastic, and gives much to consider.
I really appreciate the input. Thanks.
B
-
The further information then opened the door to a possible marriage in Ireland from 1842:
Name: Edmond Day
Gender: Male
Event Type: Marriage
Marriage Date: 2 Jul 1842
Marriage Place: Imogeela, Ireland, Ireland
Residence Place: C Martyn
Parish Variant:s Castlemartyr
Diocese: Cloyne
Spouse: Mary Walsh
No, this couple isn't yours.
In cases like this you should always check to see if the couple remained in the location of origin - Castlemartyr, Co. Cork in this case. And they did. This couple had multiple chiltren in Castlemartyr from 1843-1850.
Thank you Wexflyer,
I've been gardening all day and have been mainly away from my computer, which hopefully explains my tardy replies. Thank you for following up on that lead and indicating it is not worth investigating further. Appreciate it.
B
-
Hi Brian
You're welcome.
There seem to have been a number of probably related D'arcys about, going on the godparents names.
There was a Michael Darcy, Labourer, who married Ann Connelly in St Pancras in 1852, father James Darcy, Shoemaker. Residence Compton Place. I guess he might be a possibility.
Image on ancestry.
-
Registrations of Birth, Marriage and Death are informant led.
The Registrar, or Ecclesiastical Minister, simply writes down what he/she is told, Or, more likely, what they heard.
No proof was ever asked for.
And it is still the case that a person can call themselves anything they like - just as long as it isn't for the purposes of fraud or deceit. ;)
Thank you KGarrad,
I think that is a very valid point about it being 'informant led'. Hopefully the informant is next of kin and can provide as accurate information as possible at time of registration. There must have been occasions though (and I'm not stating this is one) where the information is very sparse or even nonexistent. A body washed up on a shore, or a sick traveller to a village.
B
-
Registrations of Birth, Marriage and Death are informant led.
The Registrar, or Ecclesiastical Minister, simply writes down what he/she is told, Or, more likely, what they heard.
No proof was ever asked for.
And it is still the case that a person can call themselves anything they like - just as long as it isn't for the purposes of fraud or deceit. ;)
Thank you KGarrad,
I think that is a very valid point about it being 'informant led'. Hopefully the informant is next of kin and can provide as accurate information as possible at time of registration. There must have been occasions though (and I'm not stating this is one) where the information is very sparse or even nonexistent. A body washed up on a shore, or a sick traveller to a village.
B
There are some burials here (Isle of Man) of unknown drowned persons.
They are marked as such in the burial registers.
-
Hi Brian
You're welcome.
There seem to have been a number of probably related D'arcys about, going on the godparents names.
There was a Michael Darcy, Labourer, who married Ann Connelly in St Pancras in 1852, father James Darcy, Shoemaker. Residence Compton Place. I guess he might be a possibility.
Image on ancestry.
Hi Jonwarrn,
I think Ancestry is citing a James Darcy as a possible father in their DNA thrulines offerings. The fact he was also a shoemaker makes it even more interesting. As always, thanks.
I am going to attempt to close the thread again now. Thought I had achieved that yesterday evening but with this cold induced thick head it appears I messed it up.
it's not that I don't appreciate every-ones input - I really do, but I have been gifted so much excellent information off the back of one simple question that I have a lot to go on and investigate further. Doors have been opened for me and I need to find time to go through them and investigate them fully. When work, children and life in general permits. I don't wish to take advantage of 'Rootschat' obvious generosity of spirit and time.
I want again to thank everyone who has read the post and particularly those that have taken time to investigate and post helpful responses.
Kind regards,
Brian
-
Registrations of Birth, Marriage and Death are informant led.
The Registrar, or Ecclesiastical Minister, simply writes down what he/she is told, Or, more likely, what they heard.
No proof was ever asked for.
And it is still the case that a person can call themselves anything they like - just as long as it isn't for the purposes of fraud or deceit. ;)
Thank you KGarrad,
I think that is a very valid point about it being 'informant led'. Hopefully the informant is next of kin and can provide as accurate information as possible at time of registration. There must have been occasions though (and I'm not stating this is one) where the information is very sparse or even nonexistent. A body washed up on a shore, or a sick traveller to a village.
B
There are some burials here (Isle of Man) of unknown drowned persons.
They are marked as such in the burial registers.
Thanks again KGarrad for your insight and answers. Going to close the thread as you have all given me much to work with. I'm very grateful.
B
-
Apparently the thread is already marked as completed!
-
From Wexflyer
1. Both the bride and groom were from Ireland. There never was any legal inhibition on Catholic marriages in Ireland, so no issue arises.
....
From Brian
1. If another couple had married in a RC church in Ireland before 1836 without an Anglican priest present, and moved to England, would their marriage be seen as legally binding in an English court? I may be wrong, but my research suggests not.
Judging by what i know of the Irish character especially in areas where there might have been some elements of discrimination, as in the various waves of Irish people moving to England, I think most Irish in the UK would be supremely unconcerned that their marriages in Ireland might not be legal in England. The influence of the church was far greater than the influence of any civil power. From my knowledge often Irish people coming to England were following a process similar
to what we call a chain migration. (Though being the same country it is not a migration as such)
Usually some enterprising person moved to England for work. Others would follow and get welcomed into a community comprising others from the village, locality or Ireland complete with a good irish Catholic Church to go Here they often recreated their Irish life working, socialising and worshipping with fellow Irish. If they had married in the eyes of the church then that was all that was needed. Also the Irish moving to England would, for the most part be wanting to keep their heads down and would not usually be wanting to engage with the courts (perhaps riotous celebrations and possible court appearances following these might be the extent of any engagement). I think that the access to community Poor Law funds and the fairly punitive regimes may have driven the law change. The inability to access help from the community by accessing Poor law funds probably drove the formation of Hibernian type organisations and those through the churches. Self help.
'In England, the Hibernian Society refers to the Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH), an Irish Catholic fraternal organization, and also to the Hibernian Sick and Funeral Society, a historical fraternal association that evolved into a defensive society.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH):
The AOH is a fraternal organization with roots in Ireland, tracing back to the Defenders in 1565, who protected Roman Catholic priests and the Church from English persecution.
The AOH exists in various countries, including America, Canada, Ireland, England, Wales, and Scotland.
Membership is restricted to practicing Roman Catholic men of Irish birth or descent.
The AOH emphasizes principles of friendship, unity, and Christian charity.
The Ladies Ancient Order of Hibernians (LAOH) is a separate organization for women dedicated to the same principles.
Hibernian Sick and Funeral Society:
This was a historical fraternal association that initially focused on promoting the welfare of members and their families.
It evolved into a defensive society, protecting the church, clergy, and members from opposition.
The AOH, with its motto of "Friendship, Unity, and Christian Charity," can trace its lineage back to the Defenders of 1565 and the Hibernian Sick and Funeral Society'
From Wiki.
-
Continued
From Brian
2. The information I provided regarding Edmund's birth was based on 3 Census records and his death registration, none of which concur on his date of birth. With the kind help of people on this forum I have located 2 more Census records attributed to him and none of them have the same DOB either. The first one pushes his DOB back to 1821. ......
In those days there was not the stress on birthdays and celebrations as we know them now. Many were illiterate and had no way of knowing the correct date of birth. Baptism/marriage registers are valuable but many records were not kept. You are very lucky that you have got back quite a distance without running into this. There is a saying that in the times when people did not know their ages or different spellings of their names that the marriage certificates may be better regarded as sources. This was because at least the names on MCs at least may have been dictated to a parish priest from a person's own knowledge - not the case with births or deaths obviously. ;D
From Brian
3b. You state that 'After all it was and is the case that you can change your name at will, no marriage required in any case'. I would therefore kindly suggest that your first answer is technically incorrect and the one kindly provide by 'KGarrad' on page 1 of this thread is correct. They stated 'A death registered in England or Wales will be under the name the person was known by.
Or, more likely, the name the informant knew them by.'
Again a point to realise is that we are talking about the Irish here. Once a woman married she was known by her married name. It was only really in Scotland that there is a strong emphasis on maiden names. This has carried over to an extent to the north of Ireland where there was a Scottish/Presbyterian influence. Though those Irish who did keep the maiden names alive in children's names to a certain extent were often likely to give a second name to a child that harked back to a respected figure in the community rather than a maiden name.
This has more info.
Traditional Naming Pattern
A traditional naming pattern was often used by Irish parents until the later 19th century:
First son usually named for the father's father
Second son usually named for the mother's father
Third son usually named for the father
Fourth son usually named for the father's eldest brother
Fifth son usually named for the mother's eldest brother
First daughter usually named for the mother's mother
Second daughter usually named for the father's mother
Third daughter usually named for the mother
Fourth daughter usually named for the mother's eldest sister
Fifth daughter usually named for the father's eldest sister.
From here
https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Ireland_Naming_Customs
So to research back, a knowledge of first names, short names/forms is essential...then getting to know that Nancy & Agnes, Bridget & Delia (Bedelia) may be interchangeable, May/Mary/Molly etc etc. Timothy/Thaddeus
-
Apparently the thread is already marked as completed!
If you get to the stage of wanting more inormation from the Irish side then please refer/link to this thread when you do so. Doing this is a courtesy to future researchers and gives them info on what others had found.
-
From Wexflyer
1. Both the bride and groom were from Ireland. There never was any legal inhibition on Catholic marriages in Ireland, so no issue arises.
....
From Brian
1. If another couple had married in a RC church in Ireland before 1836 without an Anglican priest present, and moved to England, would their marriage be seen as legally binding in an English court? I may be wrong, but my research suggests not.
Judging by what i know of the Irish character especially in areas where there might have been some elements of discrimination, as in the various waves of Irish people moving to England, I think most Irish in the UK would be supremely unconcerned that their marriages in Ireland might not be legal in England. The influence of the church was far greater than the influence of any civil power. From my knowledge often Irish people coming to England were following a process similar
to what we call a chain migration. (Though being the same country it is not a migration as such)
Usually some enterprising person moved to England for work. Others would follow and get welcomed into a community comprising others from the village, locality or Ireland complete with a good irish Catholic Church to go Here they often recreated their Irish life working, socialising and worshipping with fellow Irish. If they had married in the eyes of the church then that was all that was needed. Also the Irish moving to England would, for the most part be wanting to keep their heads down and would not usually be wanting to engage with the courts (perhaps riotous celebrations and possible court appearances following these might be the extent of any engagement). I think that the access to community Poor Law funds and the fairly punitive regimes may have driven the law change. The inability to access help from the community by accessing Poor law funds probably drove the formation of Hibernian type organisations and those through the churches. Self help.
'In England, the Hibernian Society refers to the Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH), an Irish Catholic fraternal organization, and also to the Hibernian Sick and Funeral Society, a historical fraternal association that evolved into a defensive society.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH):
The AOH is a fraternal organization with roots in Ireland, tracing back to the Defenders in 1565, who protected Roman Catholic priests and the Church from English persecution.
The AOH exists in various countries, including America, Canada, Ireland, England, Wales, and Scotland.
Membership is restricted to practicing Roman Catholic men of Irish birth or descent.
The AOH emphasizes principles of friendship, unity, and Christian charity.
The Ladies Ancient Order of Hibernians (LAOH) is a separate organization for women dedicated to the same principles.
Hibernian Sick and Funeral Society:
This was a historical fraternal association that initially focused on promoting the welfare of members and their families.
It evolved into a defensive society, protecting the church, clergy, and members from opposition.
The AOH, with its motto of "Friendship, Unity, and Christian Charity," can trace its lineage back to the Defenders of 1565 and the Hibernian Sick and Funeral Society'
From Wiki.
Hi shanreagh,
thank you very much for taking the time to write such a detailed and interesting post. I know very little of my Irish ancestry - I have a little on my father's side which has stumped me somewhat before about 1783 in Kilbrogan, Cork. This year I have started my mother's side of the tree which has many more Irish and RC ancestors. It is somewhat new territory to me.
I appreciate what you are stating about the support from the Catholic Church and the Irish community in general. From what I had read recently, one of the reasons for the law change in 1836 was to do with abandoned wives and children. I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that if this occurred before 1836 there was little recourse for the wives in the English justice system, to get support for themselves, and their children from absent fathers. From your post it seems that this may not have been such a big issue as historically presented, and that the RC church and Irish community would step up and provide support in those circumstances. I'm surprised that the English law did not throw up obstacles in inheriting for Catholic families in England before 1836 as well, but like I say, this is all new to me.
Regards,
Brian
-
Continued
From Brian
2. The information I provided regarding Edmund's birth was based on 3 Census records and his death registration, none of which concur on his date of birth. With the kind help of people on this forum I have located 2 more Census records attributed to him and none of them have the same DOB either. The first one pushes his DOB back to 1821. ......
In those days there was not the stress on birthdays and celebrations as we know them now. Many were illiterate and had no way of knowing the correct date of birth. Baptism/marriage registers are valuable but many records were not kept. You are very lucky that you have got back quite a distance without running into this. There is a saying that in the times when people did not know their ages or different spellings of their names that the marriage certificates may be better regarded as sources. This was because at least the names on MCs at least may have been dictated to a parish priest from a person's own knowledge - not the case with births or deaths obviously. ;D
From Brian
3b. You state that 'After all it was and is the case that you can change your name at will, no marriage required in any case'. I would therefore kindly suggest that your first answer is technically incorrect and the one kindly provide by 'KGarrad' on page 1 of this thread is correct. They stated 'A death registered in England or Wales will be under the name the person was known by.
Or, more likely, the name the informant knew them by.'
Again a point to realise is that we are talking about the Irish here. Once a woman married she was known by her married name. It was only really in Scotland that there is a strong emphasis on maiden names. This has carried over to an extent to the north of Ireland where there was a Scottish/Presbyterian influence. Though those Irish who did keep the maiden names alive in children's names to a certain extent were often likely to give a second name to a child that harked back to a respected figure in the community rather than a maiden name.
This has more info.
Traditional Naming Pattern
A traditional naming pattern was often used by Irish parents until the later 19th century:
First son usually named for the father's father
Second son usually named for the mother's father
Third son usually named for the father
Fourth son usually named for the father's eldest brother
Fifth son usually named for the mother's eldest brother
First daughter usually named for the mother's mother
Second daughter usually named for the father's mother
Third daughter usually named for the mother
Fourth daughter usually named for the mother's eldest sister
Fifth daughter usually named for the father's eldest sister.
From here
https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/Ireland_Naming_Customs
So to research back, a knowledge of first names, short names/forms is essential...then getting to know that Nancy & Agnes, Bridget & Delia (Bedelia) may be interchangeable, May/Mary/Molly etc etc. Timothy/Thaddeus
Hi again shanreagh,
thanks again for the further information. You stated here:
'In those days there was not the stress on birthdays and celebrations as we know them now. Many were illiterate and had no way of knowing the correct date of birth. Baptism/marriage registers are valuable but many records were not kept. You are very lucky that you have got back quite a distance without running into this.'
I understand the point you make here and I certainly agree with it. My main tree which predominantly features my father's side of the family goes back to the early 1700's on a number of branches. There is about 3,000 people on it to date, which will probably seem quite small to a number of people on this forum. I frequently see that the dates given can fluctuate, but to be honest, not often by a great deal. I would say three years is probably average, and a lot of this can be explained by when the census date falls in a year, or if the person was born late in one year and recorded/registered early the next. I can't recall any other ancestor whose DOB fluctuates as much as Edmund D'arcy on official documents, or indeed the discrepancies recorded for his children. This prompts me to consider whether he was visited many times by incompetent census takers, was very muddled, had a strong accent or was deliberately obfuscating. It is noteworthy in comparison to my other ancestors.
I have a suspicion that the naming pattern you have provided will be invaluable going forwards and I really appreciate you passing it my way. Thanks again for taking the time to make these points, and I will certainly attempt to link to this post when I return for my help with my Irish and RC forbears.
Kind Regards,
Brian