Ancestry owns rootsweb as of about two years ago. Anything you put on rootsweb automatically goes to ancestry. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David A. Myers" <davidamyers@mindspring.com> To: <irl-longford@rootsweb.com>; <irl-longford@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 1:53 AM Subject: Re: [IRL-LONGFORD] Hughes/Kelagher Marriage Dispensation > > > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irllog/churchrecs.htm > > Hi everybody. It took a while because the greedy fingers of > Ancestry.Com are getting into Rootsweb. (I have uploaded valuable > information with the clear understanding that it is to be available > to the world for FREE. Ancestry has bought out the site and is > charging for my information. That is called "stealing.") > > The site above has church records that go back to the mid > 1700's. I hope it helps. --- print it off before Ancestry trys > to charge you for it. > > David > > > > At 10:00 AM 3/20/2008, ngray.phale@att.net wrote: >>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 >>********************************** >>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 > > > ********************************** > 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
I had thought the buyout was more recent. That is why I no longer give them anything. Cannot we "good" people get together and give information to eachother for FREE? At 05:44 AM 3/21/2008, yankees_out_west wrote: >Ancestry owns rootsweb as of about two years ago. Anything you put on >rootsweb automatically goes to ancestry. > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David A. Myers" <davidamyers@mindspring.com> >To: <irl-longford@rootsweb.com>; <irl-longford@rootsweb.com> >Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 1:53 AM >Subject: Re: [IRL-LONGFORD] Hughes/Kelagher Marriage Dispensation > > > > > > > > http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~irllog/churchrecs.htm > > > > Hi everybody. It took a while because the greedy fingers of > > Ancestry.Com are getting into Rootsweb. (I have uploaded valuable > > information with the clear understanding that it is to be available > > to the world for FREE. Ancestry has bought out the site and is > > charging for my information. That is called "stealing.") > > > > The site above has church records that go back to the mid > > 1700's. I hope it helps. --- print it off before Ancestry trys > > to charge you for it. > > > > David > > > > > > > > At 10:00 AM 3/20/2008, ngray.phale@att.net wrote: > >>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 > >>********************************** > >>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 > > > > > > ********************************** > > 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 > >********************************** >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