As I suspect that Father David will tell you, the witnesses were to the marriage, not to the dispensation, which had to be obtained in advance, since it would have required a search of records or, if those were unavailable, collection of testimony from persons with knowlege of the relevant facts. Also, it would not be at all out of the ordinary for a witness to share a surname with one of the parties to marriage, since in that era witnesses were virtually invariably relatives. Nancy -------------- Original message from "king133@juno.com" <king133@juno.com>: -------------- > Hi David, > Thanks. I never thought of that. It is, in my opinion, strange though, that > there were two witness present for this dispensation of 'consanguinity'. I > thought that most of the 'consanguinity' dispensations could be handled by the > Priest without the need for witnesses. > Interestingly, one of the witnesses, Bridget Hughes, appears to be related to > the groom, James Hughes. > Thanks for the help, > Charlie King > > David wrote: > Frequently the "dispensation" is from "consanguinity" which means > they were related, probably as third cousins. > David > > _____________________________________________________________ > Free information - Learn about Financial Career Training. Click now! > http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2111/fc/Ioyw6iigiCwK0eFBLJxxEWsia0gp6CGzQAjZ > imXqCoJ5pv9AoGpX3G/ > > > > ********************************** > 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