Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Andrew Tarr

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 ... 168
The Common Room / Re: Was there a purge ?
« on: Tuesday 03 November 20 14:44 GMT (UK)  »
Did that pattern happen only in 1885?  (see below)
Was there a similar pattern at other Liverpool R.C. churches?  no idea, sorry
Were occupations stated? no
They were marrying before emigrating. Relatives could have come over from Ireland to be witnesses and bid them farewell.  Just one year looks unlikely?
You may be correct about the clerical moral crusade. There might have been a new priest or bishop or a mission. Did any have children before marriage?  can't tell from these figures
Pauline may be right about a discount. Were any on the same day, a sort of BOGOF offer? there were several on Oct.14th and nine in that week
February was the popular month for weddings in Mayo, before Lent began. Few during spring and summer until the young men returned from harvest work in England.

Thanks for ideas - I have tried to answer your queries above, but have also done a more thorough count for the years I have transcribed.  1885 looks unusual, but an unlikely scenario is that from 1876-1884 there were noticeably fewer marriages in Sept/Oct/Nov until 1885 made up the shortfall.  Seems unlikely to me, but there may have been regular visits from Ireland for work, and maybe the clerics noticed that some couples were unofficial ?

Year      total    Sep+Oct+Nov
1872       34          9
1873       35         10
1874       33         11
1875       34         12
1876       32           3
1877       24           3
1878       30           7
1879       22           2
1880       19           1
1881       25           6
1882       29           4
1883       29           8
1884       24           3
1885       41          26 !!

The Common Room / Was there a purge ?
« on: Monday 02 November 20 17:52 GMT (UK)  »
I am transcribing Catholic marriage records for what seems to have been an Irish ghetto in 1880s Liverpool.  Typically there are about 30 per year.  For May to September 1885 there were one or two per month.  Then in October we find no fewer than 18 (yes, eighteen) marriages with a few more in November, after which things return to normal.  Most of these couples give addresses in just two streets.  I wonder if the local priests (or bishop) decided that a den of iniquity was in progress and sent in a task force ?

The Common Room / Re: Does Jane translate as Anna in Latin?
« on: Sunday 18 October 20 18:30 BST (UK)  »
I have a late C-18 ancestor who appears as Jane or Jean, but that doesn't answer your query.

However I have just started transcribing Catholic marriages, and so (not very) far the priests have written Jane, without creating a Latin version, though I suppose some of the Joannas may have been Janes.  I am amused by their attempts to put accusative or genitive endings on some of the (mostly Irish) given names - their classical education seems to have varied.  Gulielmum, Patritio and Gualteri pop up.  One priest even writes 'via vulgo dicta Paul St' which seems a bit pointless in the 1870s  :(

The Common Room / Re: Messages DNA match now I hope that they do not respond
« on: Sunday 18 October 20 09:55 BST (UK)  »
I'm sure RootsChat could fill a whole new page with Believe What You Want to Believe threads.  It's what most people do, and is closely related to Nimbyism.

Sorry ...  ;D

The Common Room / Re: DNA shocker
« on: Thursday 08 October 20 13:01 BST (UK)  »
I know a lot of families that only had one child, in history and nowadays.  Nothing unusual. She may have had a lot of miscarriages.  There are many reasons why no child until 7 years later.

Of course there are.  But in this family it would have been 'unusual' as she was one of nine and her husband one of eleven.  That in itself may have caused a 'backlash' I suppose; at that time the 'usual' thing was to have several children.

The Common Room / Re: DNA shocker
« on: Thursday 08 October 20 09:56 BST (UK)  »
I sometimes wonder about my mother's parents.  They married in 1897 and almost immediately sailed to India, where their only child was born 7 years later, when Granny was 34.  It seems odd that it took that long, and that there were no other children (as far as I know :o).  Might she have sown a wild oat ?

I haven't got involved with DNA analysis, and I don't think I would be unduly disturbed if it turned up something irregular.  It might add an exotic flavour to my tree ....

The Common Room / Re: DNA shocker
« on: Wednesday 07 October 20 16:00 BST (UK)  »
If only that were true. I have already had one brusque, rather dismissive email wishing me ‘luck in the future’ as though all ties are cut now. I feel really sad about it and not knowing who my great great grandfather is , is really upsetting.

As has been said, it may be 'upsetting', but genealogy always includes the chance of discovering some facts you would rather have not found.  It can be a Pandora's box.  Objectively nothing in 'you' has changed, but you feel that your surroundings are unfamiliar.  If you aren't ready to deal with the unexpected it might be safer to stop digging, but the search itself should be enjoyable.  You may have to readjust your bearings occasionally.

Of course you could simply continue to believe whatever you prefer to believe - there is always plenty of room for doubt.

The Common Room / Re: Sponsors or godparents listed on baptismal records?
« on: Monday 28 September 20 12:43 BST (UK)  »
True, there was no specific place on the form where the groom or bride's occupation could be written, but I have seen plenty of examples where the occupation was entered anyway.

Perhaps this was done when several people in a place had the same name (pretty common rurally I should think) and more identification might be needed.  Remember Dai the Post and the like  :D

The Common Room / Re: Double barrelled surnames
« on: Thursday 10 September 20 23:10 BST (UK)  »
(When I was teaching, we always guessed if the children on the Admissions list with DB surnames were posh, or simply that their parents never married.)

Just as an aside, it seems that these days d-b 'surnames' are becoming commoner - in both senses of that word.  The working class has usually made-do with just a single forename, while those they 'look up to' often had two, and the upper classes may have had more.  Of course the early Victorians started a vogue for using ancestors' surnames as middle names, and perhaps a hyphen got inserted later ?

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 ... 168