Any Evidence for Birth in Dublin of Sarah Roche, ca 1878-1882.

[Wexflyer]

Interesting that Patrick Roach from Wicklow was also a sailor, like John in Bootle....

Were the family Catholic?  Magdalene may have been a confirmation name. My great grandfather converted to Catholicism about this time in Manchester and acquired a new middle name that he used from that time until his death.

Here is a link for the birth of Sarah Roach in Wicklow in 1878.
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1878/02979/2091549.pdf

That the father was Patrick, a sailor, did attract my attention. As you say, the John Roche of Bootle was also a sailor, and had a (potentially) unaccounted for brother named Patrick.

However, the marriage registration for Patrick Roche and his wife, Sarah Toner, in Wicklow in 1869, shows that his father was a William Roche, which doesn't fit with my Roche families.
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/marriage_returns/marriages_1869/11429/8198553.pdf

Furthermore, according to a transcript, Patrick appears to have been baptized in Wicklow in March 1846, so no sign of any Wexford connection. I have to say, though, that I don't see such a record in the original register.

[Wexflyer]

Were the family Catholic?  Magdalene may have been a confirmation name. My great grandfather converted to Catholicism about this time in Manchester and acquired a new middle name that he used from that time until his death.

I often ask the same question, about religion, so my apologies for not having stated that they were all Catholic.  [Or became Catholic  - I don't know what persuasion Jenkin Williams was originally]. I thought Magdalene was a give away 

As regards confirmation names, I entirely agree. With Catholic families I put little to no emphasis on second Christian names when looking for births, for this reason.

[Wexflyer]

At risk of sounding critical of the Irish, the BMD records are not 100% correct for this period. My own grandfather was born in about 1880 in Galway but his birth does not seem to have been registered at the time though he was baptised.  Several of his siblings were baptised before birth (if you believe the paper records) too!!

Well, with many being patriotic, you don't think they were going to support the British administration, do you? And at a cost to themselves!

As regards premature baptisms, so called, that is relatively easy to understand given the circumstances of the day. My grandmother and her sisters were all born in the 19th century. Over 50 years ago I enquired why we never celebrated her birthday. She explained that birthdays were never celebrated in her generation, and many didn't know what their birthday was. Further, her parents and grandparents generation did not live by the calendar, and would not have been able to read a calendar in any case. As a specific example, my grandmother was well educated with a boarding school education, but her father was illiterate, as was her grandparents.

Putting this all together, if there is a discrepancy as to the date, I always go with the earlier one.

[Wexflyer]

Have you considered she might connect through one of the female surnames in the family.

I have wondered, but may be impossible to tell.

In terms of linking the Bootle and Wexford families, there is a Hayes - Hayes possibility in addition to Roche - Roche. However, I know the latter link did exist. It took me over 20 years to find it, as it depends on an 1807 baptism that is only available online on RootsIreland. On the Hayes side, the John Roche of Bootle was married to a Catherine Hayes. Her father had a common name (John), and in addition the parish records in Tagoat, where my Hayes line comes from, only start in 1853, which is way too late.

In any case, the Roche link between Wexford and Bootle did exist, and is documentable, so I thought the alternative unlikely.

[Wexflyer]

I'm surprised when I find a child 'born' before they were baptised in some of my families but it's not the fault of the BMD records the registrar could only record the information given.

Surely you mean the reverse?

[Sinann]

I'm surprised when I find a child 'born' before they were baptised in some of my families but it's not the fault of the BMD records the registrar could only record the information given.

Surely you mean the reverse?

No, many of mine ‘appear’ to be baptised before they were born.


What about John’s mother’s family. Could Sarah be a child of perhaps a cousin from his mother’s side.

[Wexflyer]

What about John’s mother’s family. Could Sarah be a child of perhaps a cousin from his mother’s side.

I have not looked at them, as they are not related to me. More particularly, there would be no relationship to the daughter Sarah adopted in turn. That relationship is on John Roche's paternal side.

I can't see how that child (Sarah's adoptive child) would have been sent to Bootle absent a blood relationship.

[Sinann]

The child’s mother would be John’s first cousin.

It was just a thought, I was trying to think of a surname she could have been registered under other than Roche.

[frostyknight]

I'm surprised when I find a child 'born' before they were baptised in some of my families but it's not the fault of the BMD records the registrar could only record the information given.

Surely you mean the reverse?

No, many of mine ‘appear’ to be baptised before they were born.

I have a few where the baptism occurs before the registered birthdate too.