Charlie, I think you should also consider affinity (in addition to consanguinity) as the reason for the need of a dispenstation. Perhaps, David, you could give Charlie your thinking on that? The "obli." in the record is probably irrelevant to the facts in the case. My reading would be that it is an abbreviation for obligata(...), the ending of the full word dependent on the case of "dispensation" in the original Latin record. That would simply mean that the dispensation was required, and the fact that the dispensation is noted has already told the reader that. Nancy -------------- Original message from "king133@juno.com" <king133@juno.com>: -------------- > Hi Dave, > Great to have you as a Latin 'reference'. My father was disappointed, to say the > least, when I elected to take French rather than Latin in High School. > Taking a look at the first marriage ceremony it looks like the witnesses were: > Patrick Fehely and Anna Reynolds > Taking a look at the wording in second marriage ceremony and comparing it with > the wording in the first ceremony: > ...the wording is exactly the same EXCEPT for an addition at the END of the > record which reads "dispensation(e?) obli??" and > ...the witnesses were: Charles M?Cann and Bridget Hughes. > > I think that the theory that there was a relationship between the Kelagher and > Hughes family is a strong possibility. I don't know this but I could be (GUESS) > that Bridget Hughes in the second marriage may have been the mother or aunt of > James Hughes who knew more than James was 'privy' too concerning family > relationships. > Yes, conjecture, but very interesting stuff. > > Thanks for the help, > Charlie King > gg grandson of James Hughes > and Bridget Kelagher of Co. Longford > > Father David wrote: > Hi Charlie, > You came to the right guy. I not only speak Latin fluently (with > myself), but also taught it in high school (1960's). > Patricio is a guy: Patrick. > Anna is a gal. > Carolo is Charles. Was it Charles McCann? > A "casulo/casulum" is a "case" like a "legal case." > The dispensation issue would have been the legal case. If there was > "newly discovered evidence" after the initial marriage that, without > the dispensation, would have rendered the marriage invalid, they > would have had to get the dispensation and then do the marriage over again. > Soooooo... maybe there were two marriage ceremonies, 4 days > apart. Probably the second one would have been very simple, just to > "correct" the first one, and they used the first two witnesses they > could find (or, witnesses whom they could trust not to divulge the > original error. ?????) > Do you think the groom, James Hughes, could have been related to the > second witness, Bridget Hughes? and that she spilled the beans > about Bridget Kelagher being their cousin? Such intrigue ! ! > David > > > _____________________________________________________________ > Click here for the latest quotes on great fixed mortgage loans! > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iiglzQMCe6llnk4hbAfzZ8VAzPyj95r > nz0VFuDXF8gr1204GY/ > > > > ********************************** > Longford Genealogy Website: http://www.rootsweb.com/~irllog/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > IRL-LONGFORD-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message