A Genealogical Mystery

Our Roots, Families, past Generations etc...

A Genealogical Mystery

Postby Micheál » Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:09 pm

This is not about any Dun Laoghaire folk directly but this Dun Laoghaire guy needs help from the wise people in the Dun Laoghaire Forum to solve it - or at least come up with some plausible theories.

My maternal Great Grandfather was in the RIC. His record shows he was married 31/07/1875. This reconciles with the births of his various children, 1876 - 1890 (and their birth records reconcile to their parents names and other details). All nice and neat BUT . . .

1. I found the marriage recorded with the exact same details, witnesses etc in TWO separate RC Registers in two neighbouring Dioceses Cloyne and Cork & Ross - both entries written in the same handwriting and in the name of the same Bishops' Secretary ! (i.e. he signed up a register in his own place and also in a parish not part of his Dioceses)

2. In his own register, the entry is demonstrably squeezed in some time AFTER the event. ie. several August Marriage had been recorded, then the details were shoved-in between July & August.

3. There is NO CIVIL record of the marriage anywhere in Ireland. (Other marriage records from the same register, before and after the mystery marriage, were properly recorded in the GRO)

What the heck is going on??????

M.
User avatar
Micheál
Skies are Blue
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:13 am
Location: Within the sound of the Hooter

Re: A Genealogical Mystery

Postby keeper » Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:30 pm

Strange, maybe since seeing he had two registers to update he entered the details in the wrong register at first, then discovered his mistake or it was noticed by someone else he had to then fill in the proper register hence the later entry than previously recorded marriages. No record of the civil marriage details is a mystery though.
User avatar
keeper
Somewhere over the rainbow
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: A Genealogical Mystery

Postby Sinead » Fri Dec 16, 2016 11:31 pm

Is there something about the RC registers being 'The Civil Record' that is why you have to sign a register?

I can't find where my Great Grandfather was born or married, two of his children were born in England and
the third in Wicklow. is birth should be between 1840 and 1850. I know where he is buried but haven't tracked
down a death certificate yet. Genealogical Mysteries all over this country.

Sinéad
User avatar
Sinead
Somewhere over the rainbow
 
Posts: 1975
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:09 pm
Location: Co.Dublin

Re: A Genealogical Mystery

Postby Rocker » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:44 am

My Great grandfather was RIC and married in 1875 too in Monkstown.He was 33 years old which was quite old to marry in those days but, I remember reading something about police not being allowed marry for seven years after joining or needing permission from their superiors and I think many of them got married on the sly and then registered the event later.
I am not afraid of tomorrow, for I have seen yesterday and I love today.
William Allen White
User avatar
Rocker
Globetrotter
 
Posts: 6424
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:29 pm
Location: The Rock

Re: A Genealogical Mystery

Postby Micheál » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:43 am

Aha! That's a very interesting angle Rocker. And I can see how the clergy might be complicit in such an arrangement too.
There's still some loose ends though -

- the continued absence of a Civil Registration. Even if the clergy agreed not to carry out their (parallel) civic duty at the time, Civil registration would hardly be left incomplete indefinitely when there's a potential Widows Pension at stake (As things turned out, his wife pre-deceased him)
- the fact his RIC record clearly shows he was married in 1875.

But wait, maybe 1875 was the 'pretence' (which was conveniently 7-years after recruitment) and his actual marriage was before 1865 ( pre civil registration !)? Meaning I'll need to explore an earlier RC Register for the real event.

Then I think my next stop will be the RIC Historian, Jim Herlihy.

M.
User avatar
Micheál
Skies are Blue
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:13 am
Location: Within the sound of the Hooter

Re: A Genealogical Mystery

Postby Micheál » Sat Dec 17, 2016 4:16 pm

This confirms Rockers earlier comments .. .

"Marriage of Members of The Force (1911 Code)

1064. Officer's Marriage
-Every officer on his marriage is to make a report thereof, in which he is required to state the name of his wife previous to marriage, the date of marriage, and the counties in which his wife's relatives reside.

1065. Conditions
-No Head or other Constable is to marry without permission from the County Inspector.

1066. No man can be allowed to marry a woman of doubtful moral character.

1067. Permission to marry may be granted by the County Inspector, within a month of the date of application,to any member of the force of seven years service or, upwards provided that satisfactory references as to the character of the intended wife have been received.

1068. If the marriage does not take place within six weeks of the permission being granted,a fresh application must be forwarded,and the case treated as if no previous application had been made.

1069 Identity
-Great care is to be taken by the District Inspector and County Inspector to ascertain that every man about to obtain permission is really going to marry the woman named in his original application.

1070 Declaration
-Before permission is granted to marry,every applicant must subscribe the declaration contained in the prescribed form that he is single; and anyspecies of falsehood subterfuge in making such declaration may involve dismissal.

1071 Solemnization
-The marriages of the men are to be solemnized strictly according to the -Marriages Acts, -and County Inspectors will therefore require the necessary marriage certificates to be presented to them.

1072 Report
-When a man marries with permission,a report should be made to head-quarters,giving his name and registered number,the date of his marriage, and the counties in which his wife is connected.

1073. Marriage Certificates
- certificates of the local registrars should always be accepted , provided they are on the usual official form supplied to them by the Registrar General. Where these certificates cannot be obtained, and it is necessary to apply to the Registrar General for a certified copy of the entry, such applications should not be made until one month after the expiration of the quarter in which the marriage was solemnized,as the returns of marriages do not reach the Registrar General's department until some time after the end of each quarter.

1074. The completion of Table IV.of Form 19 may, therefore,be delayed to the extent indicated above, and the submission to head-quarters of a report of the marriage may also be delayed,except in cases where there are circumstances which rander necessary the immediate removal of the member of the Force concerned.

1075. Removal
- When a man obtains permission to marry, if the woman he marries is a native of the county in which he is serving, or locally connected therein, he will be liable to be at once removed to another county.

1076. When it shall become necessary to remove a married man out of his county,as a general rule he will,unless there be more than a due proportion married already in the county,be replaced by a married man.

1077. Marriage without Leave.
- When officers have strong grounds for suspecting that a member of the Force has married without leave, they are to lose no time in stating those grounds to the Inspector-General, in order that suitable disciplinary action may be taken.

1078. Widow's Gratuity
- No gratuity will be awarded to the widow of any deceased officer or man out of the Constabulary Force fund unless he had been married at least one whole year previous to his death."
User avatar
Micheál
Skies are Blue
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:13 am
Location: Within the sound of the Hooter

Re: A Genealogical Mystery

Postby Rocker » Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:47 am

Gosh Micheál so many rules! I suppose they were trying to ensure that the RIC did not have any relationship with anyone in the town in which they were based. My Gt grandfather moved from Dún Laoghaire to a Dublin barracks after he got married. He was from Wicklow and met his wife when he was based in Dún Laoghaire,
Jim Herlihy was a great help to me in tracing him as all I knew was his name and my mother's story that he had been the tallest man on the force....that turned out to be wishful thinking! or a tallest tale :lol:
I am not afraid of tomorrow, for I have seen yesterday and I love today.
William Allen White
User avatar
Rocker
Globetrotter
 
Posts: 6424
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 12:29 pm
Location: The Rock

Re: A Genealogical Mystery

Postby Gulliver » Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:42 pm

Michael
The civil registration as provided online is incomplete - quite a number of records are missing - I understand that some of the missing ones are being added.

Jim Herlihy - RIC historian - was in Dun L for a Genealogical Soc only 5 weeks ago
"Not all those who wander are lost" (J.R.R.Tolkien)
User avatar
Gulliver
A Dun Laoghaire Sunset
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:58 am
Location: Liliput

Re: A Genealogical Mystery

Postby Micheál » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:00 am

Gulliver wrote:Michael
The civil registration as provided online is incomplete - quite a number of records are missing - I understand that some of the missing ones are being added.


And I've been told, by a professional genealogist, that there's a particular problem in Cork where
- there are actually TWO indexes
- the Index that was digitised is known to be error ridden
- the present whereabouts of the more correct Index, once available in Adelaide Road, is unknown.

M.
User avatar
Micheál
Skies are Blue
 
Posts: 2503
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:13 am
Location: Within the sound of the Hooter

Re: A Genealogical Mystery

Postby Gulliver » Tue Dec 20, 2016 10:43 am

There are two indexes for Dublin - A person whom I know was correctly indexed (as Norton) in one but incorrectly indexed (as Horton) in the other. She requested that the faulty index be corrected, or that a note be appended on the original page but this was refused. When the index was computerised, it was done from the index with the faulty entry. Then, in these situations, a computerised solution is used - when she requests a cert, the cert issued does not show a copy of the original handwritten record - instead, it shows the details in typed text. Not a correct solution, but it avoids complications.
"Not all those who wander are lost" (J.R.R.Tolkien)
User avatar
Gulliver
A Dun Laoghaire Sunset
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:58 am
Location: Liliput


Return to GENEALOGY



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron