Roman Catholic Marriage (Latin)

[SteveJW]

I wonder if someone can transcribe this

I have deciphered
1925 6th October
Catharina Bowser, daughter of Samuel and Joanna E Bowser
Present (unknown) Michael Kelly and Cissie Wilson

This is written at the side of the baptism record for Joseph Ruane, is this usual

Many Thanks in anticipation

Steve

[arthurk]

Entries like this are often found in RC baptism registers, but beware - a few days ago someone posted one here and it turned out to have been written against the wrong baptism, so it's a good idea to confirm the names and dates against things like the original marriage register, GRO index, online parish clerks etc.

Here it says "The same year 1925 on the 6th October he married Catharine Bowser...", which implies that the groom was baptised as an adult a little while before the marriage.

EDIT:
See later posts - parts of the paragraph above (now struck through) are based on a misreading of the Latin.

The other bits you didn't get were 'presentibus testibus' - 'in the presence of witnesses...', and that the marriage was at St Hugh's Church, Liverpool.

[Tickettyboo]

It was common for RC registers to note a later marriage on a baptism record.
If the person was married in another church/parish to the one they had been baptised in, the priest at the marriage parish would contact the parish priest where they were said to have been baptised to confirm from his register that the baptism had taken place.
Priest would check then reply and also (often but not always) make the note in the baptism record about when where and to whom the child, now an adult,  married.
If it was the same parish, some priests made the note in their own parish baptism register.

I have a baptism in Liverpool dated 1902 which has a note saying the child baptised was later married in August 1940 in Kitchener, Ontario - so checking from a distance didn't seem to be a problem :-)

It can be enormously helpful !

Boo

[Bookbox]

Here it says "The same year 1925 on the 6th October he married Catharine Bowser..."

Very minor point – the first word Ipse means ‘he himself’ and refers to Ruane, not to the year.

[Tickettyboo]

Very minor point – the first word Ipse means ‘he himself’ and refers to Ruane, not to the year.

As confirmed by the baptism side of the record (I looked it up) which took place in 1886.

Boo

[arthurk]

Here it says "The same year 1925 on the 6th October he married Catharine Bowser..."

Very minor point – the first word Ipse means ‘he himself’ and refers to Ruane, not to the year.

Not a minor point, actually, and you're quite correct - for non-Latin readers I'd interpreted 'ipse' as 'ipso'. As Tickettyboo has now found, what I wrote about the chap being an adult was complete nonsense.

[SteveJW]

Many thanks for all those that replied
I have included here the baptism side of the entry for those who may be interested
I would imagine that Catherine would have to be baptised in the Roman Catholic faith before she could marry in a Roman Catholic church.
I wonder if it is possible to find this, help may be required

Joseph became a gardener at Alton Tower Park, 1939 they lived at Allerton Tower Lodge
Family legend has it that he knew where the cuckoo was, this will make sense to those who know the area

Steve

[Tickettyboo]

I would imagine that Catherine would have to be baptised in the Roman Catholic faith before she could marry in a Roman Catholic church.

Not necessarily. Do you have the parish marriage record? Did it have any extra notation on it?
I have a selection of RC parish marriages. Sometimes its marked as a 'mixed marriage' and there may have been a dispensation from the bishop to say it was ok to marry - the main requirement  was that the non RC spouse would agree that any children would be brought up as RC.

From what I have read, here in the UK the one thing that all different flavours of religion agreed upon was that 'baptism' can only happen once no matter what religion your parents had you baptised into, you can't be 'baptised' twice.
I have seen adult baptisms into the RC church marked as 'sub conditione' - which roughly translates into 'the person can't show one way or another if they have ever been baptised therefore they are received into the church', but if already baptised elsewhere its not an actual baptism but shows they have been recieved into the congregation as a member of that faith - if that makes sense.
My husband's G Grandmother, was baptised as C of E. She married a catholic (in a registrar's office). This puzzled me greatly as, according to her grand-daughter, G Granny was more Catholic than the Pope :-)  No adult 'baptism' has been found for her, no RC confirmation has been found. All of her children were baptised as RC and she had a full requiem mass at her funeral (which indicates she 'was' Catholic.)

These things are rarely straightforward.
Boo

[Maiden Stone]

Requirements for a Catholic to marry in the presence of a priest and for a marriage to be entered in baptism registers applied in England from the "Ne Temere" decree 1908.
"Moreover the parish priest is to note in the book of baptisms the fact that the married person contracted marriage on a certain date in his parish. If the married person was baptised elsewhere, the parish priest who has assisted at marriage is to send notice of the marriage, either directly or through the episcopal court, to the parish priest of the place where the person was baptised, in order that the marriage be inscribed in the book of baptisms."
Not all parish priests followed the instruction about noting a marriage in baptism register.
I understand that the reason for noting marriages in baptism registers was to prevent bigamous Catholic marriages, particularly by those who had left their native place. U.S. bishops were concerned about immigrants from countries which had a tradition of early marriage, in case they had left a spouse behind and married another in their new country.