Ireland's National Trust is a voluntary organization founded in 1948 to advance the conservation and management of Ireland's natural and built environments in manners which are sustainable. Advice, lobbying, reviewing plans, and educational programs are among their activities. This description appears in a diary published by the Institute of Public Administration (Dublin).

Hello list, My great-grandfather, Peter LYONS emigrated to the USA from County Cork around 1863-1865. He was born in 1847. His wife, Ellen CHRISTIE, also came from County Cork. I have only been able to locate them in the USA and not in Cork. Hoping to get a line on the ship they came on or birth/marriage records. Thanks, Betty -- RESEARCHING: LYONS, CHRISTIE (County Cork, Ireland, Jersey City and Paterson, New Jersey) WALTON (Leek, Staffordshire and Paterson, New Jersey) LANGMAN/LANGEMANN (Germany, Paterson, New Jersey) SIKKELEE (Holland, Paterson, New Jersey) --

Robert, The Church of Ireland is Episcopalian, and the priests do marry and have families. The Catholic priests remain celebate, but I understand a catholic widower under certain circumstances may become a priest-even if he is a biological father. Bonnie GARRITY California

The Church of Ireland is a different church organization (It is NOT related to the Roman Catholic Church.) Like other faiths that developed during Henry the 8th of England's reign, celibacy was not an issue regards the Church of Ireland SHAMROCK-D-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > Subject: > > SHAMROCK-D Digest Volume 01 : Issue 129 > > Today's Topics: > #1 Re: [SH] Church or Civil Records [Caiside@aol.com] > #2 [SH] Ireland's National Trust?? [Patricia Jungwirth <tricia.j@aardv] > #3 Re: [SH] Ireland's National Trust? [Caiside@aol.com] > #4 Re: [SH] re Ellis Island comment f ["Elizabeth Laird" <ealaird@2xtreme] > #5 [SH] [Admin] Reminders [mpetzolt2@webtv.net (Maura)] > #6 Re: [SH] re Ellis Island comment f ["Billie" <bjordan@dbscorp.net>] > #7 OT- sorry Maura -Re: [SH] re Ellis ["Billie" <bjordan@dbscorp.net>] > #8 [SH] Newport RI Irish Marriages ["Tony Riordan" <triordan@email.msn] > #9 RE: [SH] Church or Civil Records ["Michael Mccarthy" <sokar@earthlin] > #10 [SH] Married Priests ["Michael Mccarthy" <sokar@earthlin] > > Administrivia: > > **TO POST A MESSAGE TO THE LIST** > send it to SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com > > TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM DIGEST or Change to regular mail mode, see the information on http://community.webtv.net/shamrockroots/subunsub > > SHAMROCK ROOTS homepage > http://community.webtv.net/shamrockroots/SHAMROCKROOTS > > ______________________________ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: [SH] Church or Civil Records > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 06:31:12 EDT > From: Caiside@aol.com > To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com > > In a message dated 4/27/01 6:16:13 AM, brendanj@gofree.indigo.ie writes: > > << Further searching showed the same > > couple getting married six years later in 1907 in another > > parish and in the adjoining County and the Cert > > proved that they were indeed the same couple. > > I got back to me researcher whom I thrust completely. > > He rechecked his records and confirmed his findings > > were that they were married in 1901 according to > > the church records. > > The first child born to this couple was in 1907. >> > > Interesting! What was the religion? I ask because, is it possible they > were married a "second" time after one of them converted? Or is the names > are common, are you ABSOLUTELY sure it is the same couple and not someone > else with the same names (cousins, even)? > How do you know they were the same couple? > [OR--and this is a stretch---could the 1 of "1901" really be a 7? OK, the > entry would not be on a 1901 page in a church record book if it hadn't > occurred yet....., but maybe if the church book was a transcription, someone > made a mistake? > > You should check the 1901 census--hopefully the 1901 date is before the > census was taken... were they livng at home or as wife & husband? > > Let us know! > Janet C-S > > ______________________________ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: [SH] Ireland's National Trust?? > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:01:02 +1000 > From: Patricia Jungwirth <tricia.j@aardvark.net.au> > To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com > > Hello, > > Over the last few weeks I have asked about Ireland's Nationa Trust - to no > avail? - in the meantime I'm waiting for a reply from the National Trust... > > I gather by the deafening silence to my query on Shamrock that nobody has > had any dealings with Ireland's National Trust? - > > so does anybody know anything about the office in the former Tailor's Guild > building - in Back Lane Dublin - the building was probably erected about > 1710 and is now the head-office of Ireland's National Trust. > > thanks > Robert > > p.s. - why waste an email - > > anybody care to comment on the prospect that an Irishman/woman could be > legally descended from a catholic priest? - was the priest married first - > had a family. wife died, and then joined the priesthood? > > Anybody know whether an ordained priest of the Church of Ireland would > likely be married and have children? > > ______________________________ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: [SH] Ireland's National Trust?? > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:45:01 EDT > From: Caiside@aol.com > To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com > > In a message dated 4/27/01 8:01:15 AM, tricia.j@aardvark.net.au writes: > > << anybody care to comment on the prospect that an Irishman/woman could be > legally descended from a catholic priest? - was the priest married first - > had a family. wife died, and then joined the priesthood?>> > > That is very possible. Widowed men could be ordained to the priesthood. Of > course, then they could not remarry. > Of course, it is also possible to be descended from a priest who left the > priesthood and was released from his vows and married. (He would have not > been allowed to continue to function as a priest.) This would have been > pretty rare until fairly recently. > Third possibility, the priest fathered a child while a priest. He would not > have been married (at least not in the eyes of the RC church) and the child > would have been illegitimate. > > <<Anybody know whether an ordained priest of the Church of Ireland would > likely be married and have children? > >> > Yes. In fact, it was more common than not. > > Janet C-S > > ______________________________ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:46:59 -0700 > From: "Elizabeth Laird" <ealaird@2xtreme.net> > To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com > > Sure we are.....and Scot and German, as well.......but we gotta love > those Irish the best! > Elizabeth > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Prichard <mprichard@cistron.nl> > To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com <SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:28 PM > Subject: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre > > >Dear Listers, > > > >I think the snide comment re Ellis and the English unnecessary! > > > >Some of us are both Irish and English....and proud of it > > > > > >==== SHAMROCK Mailing List ==== > >*** Helpful Hints for Successful > >Searching > >http://community.webtv.net/mpetzolt2/helpfulhints ** > > > > > > > > ______________________________ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: [SH] [Admin] Reminders > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 10:57:10 -0500 (CDT) > From: mpetzolt2@webtv.net (Maura) > To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com > > Some general reminders..... > > First, you cannot unsubscribe by sending a command to the list. See the > directions on the list webpage url below. > > Secondly, please remember that what -you- think is a cute comment will > undoubtabley be misinterpreted and tick off someone on the list, who > will then send their comments and which will then start a thread where I > have to step in (like now). If you have a comment you think is cute, > please do not send it to the list. And those of you who respond to it > are just as wrong as the original person. > > This is a genealogy only list, and (if I do say so myself) run fairly > strictly on this. We're pretty well known for not tolerating this stuff, > and people actually prefer this list for that reason. > It bothers me greatly when I have to unsub someone for violating the > list rules - especially as they are given out to each person and posted > in many places. > > Now, lets all stop this nonsense and get back to genealogy. > > Listowner > SHAMROCK > > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > Maura Petzolt mpetzolt2@webtv.net > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > SHAMROCK ROOTS homepage > http://community.webtv.net/shamrockroots/SHAMROCKROOTS > > Helpful Hints for Successful Searching > http://community.webtv.net/mpetzolt2/helpfulhints > > ______________________________ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: Re: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:32:29 -0400 > From: "Billie" <bjordan@dbscorp.net> > To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com > > I must agree, but some of us have a little bit of them all like a heinz 57 (lol) so we gotta be proud of them all. But I think I like researching my Irish the best. :) And just, in my humble opinion, I thought the comment was kind of cute and not at all snide, snide is a little bit to harsh of a word to use, after all I took it that they were just kidding around. :) > > Have a Great Day, :) > Billie > > JORDAN, LOWE, BLACKBURN, STEWART/D, IRWIN/IRVINE > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Elizabeth Laird <ealaird@2xtreme.net> > To: <SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 5:46 PM > Subject: Re: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre > > Sure we are.....and Scot and German, as well.......but we gotta love > those Irish the best! > Elizabeth > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Prichard <mprichard@cistron.nl> > To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com <SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:28 PM > Subject: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre > > >Dear Listers, > > > >I think the snide comment re Ellis and the English unnecessary! > > > >Some of us are both Irish and English....and proud of it > > > > > >==== SHAMROCK Mailing List ==== > >*** Helpful Hints for Successful > >Searching > >http://community.webtv.net/mpetzolt2/helpfulhints ** > > > > > > > > ==== SHAMROCK Mailing List ==== > ** Remember! No flames, chain > letters, virus warnings or other off > topic posts should be sent to the > SHAMROCK list ** > > ______________________________ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: OT- sorry Maura -Re: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:51:32 -0400 > From: "Billie" <bjordan@dbscorp.net> > To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com > > Whoops sorry Maura, I didn't see your message to stop the replies till after I sent the below email and scrolled a little ways down my list, my apologies. > > Have a Great Day, > > Billie > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Billie <bjordan@dbscorp.net> > To: <SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:32 PM > Subject: Re: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre > > I must agree, but some of us have a little bit of them all like a heinz 57 (lol) so we gotta be proud of them all. But I think I like researching my Irish the best. :) And just, in my humble opinion, I thought the comment was kind of cute and not at all snide, snide is a little bit to harsh of a word to use, after all I took it that they were just kidding around. :) > > Have a Great Day, :) > Billie > > JORDAN, LOWE, BLACKBURN, STEWART/D, IRWIN/IRVINE > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Elizabeth Laird <ealaird@2xtreme.net> > To: <SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 5:46 PM > Subject: Re: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre > > Sure we are.....and Scot and German, as well.......but we gotta love > those Irish the best! > Elizabeth > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Prichard <mprichard@cistron.nl> > To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com <SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com> > Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:28 PM > Subject: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre > > >Dear Listers, > > > >I think the snide comment re Ellis and the English unnecessary! > > > >Some of us are both Irish and English....and proud of it > > > > > >==== SHAMROCK Mailing List ==== > >*** Helpful Hints for Successful > >Searching > >http://community.webtv.net/mpetzolt2/helpfulhints ** > > > > > > > > ==== SHAMROCK Mailing List ==== > ** Remember! No flames, chain > letters, virus warnings or other off > topic posts should be sent to the > SHAMROCK list ** > > ==== SHAMROCK Mailing List ==== > ** To unsubscribe from this list send > unsubscribe to > SHAMROCK-L-request@rootsweb.com for > regular mode, or > SHAMROCK-D-request@rootsweb.com for > digest ** > > ______________________________ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: [SH] Newport RI Irish Marriages > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:48:39 -0700 > From: "Tony Riordan" <triordan@email.msn.com> > To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com > > SOME IRISH-AMERICAN MARRIAGES, Newport RI, 1894 > > These are tidbits and scraps left over from my own research. Only one > of these (guess which one) is related to me. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Date: 25 April 1894 > Groom, age, birthplace: William C. CHADWICK 22 Newport RI > Bride, age: Mary Agnes QUINN 24 Ireland > Groom Residence: Newport > Bride Residence: Newport > Groom Parents and nativity: James M Chadwick, Aus., Maria GRAY, Irish > Bride Parents and nativity: Stephen QUINN, Bridget HARDING, both Irish > > Date: 25 April 1894 > Groom, age, birthplace: Daniel John SULLIVAN 25 Irish > Bride, age, birthplace: Ellen LEARY 29 Irish > Groom Residence: Newport > Bride Residence: Newport > Groom Parents: John SULLIVAN and Kate SHEA > Bride Parents: John Y. LEARY and Catherine SWEENEY > > Date: April 26 1894 > Groom, age, birthplace: Cornelius RIORDAN 32, Ireland > Bride, age: Bridget CURRAN 28, Ireland > Groom Residence: Fitchburg Mass. > Bride Residence: Newport RI > Groom Parents and nativity: John RIORDAN, Catherine KELLIHER > Bride Parents and nativity: Michael CURRAN, Hanora O'CONNOR > > Date: 26 April 1894 > Groom, age: John DONNELLY 28 Irish > Bride, age: Kate SHEA 26 Irish > Groom Residence: Newport > Bride Residence: Newport > Gr. Parents and nativity: John DONNELLY & Kate CURRIN Irl. > Br. Parents and nativity: Stephen & Bridget SHEA Irl. > > Date: 29 April 1894 > Groom, age: James Robertson 33 Scotland > Bride, age: Mary DOYLE 24 Irish > Groom Residence: Newport > Bride Residence: Newport > Gr. Parents and nativity: James Robertson, Betsy Leckie, Scotch > Br. Parents and nativity: John & Mary DOYLE, Irish > > Best wishes, > Tony Riordan > triordan@msn.com > ______________________________________________________________ > THE RIORDAN FAMILY GENEALOGY PAGE: > http://www.geocities.com/triordan.geo/index.html > > ______________________________ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: RE: [SH] Church or Civil Records > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 20:02:01 -0700 > From: "Michael Mccarthy" <sokar@earthlink.net> > To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com > > In Ardfert, Kerry, I used the Christening records and confirmed the > existence( for my surname) of multiple men with the same first for most of > the common first names. There were several cases where either the husbands > or the wife's name was almost certainly wrong in a record. The less than one > third of the marriages were in the marriage register for that parish. I > suspect the parish priests often confused grooms or their brides with > siblings. > > ______________________________ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: [SH] Married Priests > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 20:08:55 -0700 > From: "Michael Mccarthy" <sokar@earthlink.net> > To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com > > <<He would not have been married (at least not in the eyes of the RC > church)>> > > Be a little careful. That is certainly true for the last 400 years but > prior to that married parish priests were moderately common even though it > was highly discouraged and even "illegal" in the eyes of Rome. If memory > serves it is only after the Council of Trent (1540?) that married RC priests > almost totally disappear. > > BTW; Our local bishop commented recently that there are some 130 in the US > currently. All converts who were married and ordained prior to conversion.

on 4/28/01 12:00 AM, SHAMROCK-D-request@rootsweb.com at SHAMROCK-D-request@rootsweb.com wrote: > From: Patricia Jungwirth <tricia.j@aardvark.net.au> > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 22:01:02 +1000 > To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [SH] Ireland's National Trust?? > > Hello, > > Over the last few weeks I have asked about Ireland's Nationa Trust - to no > avail? - in the meantime I'm waiting for a reply from the National Trust... > > > I gather by the deafening silence to my query on Shamrock that nobody has > had any dealings with Ireland's National Trust? - > > so does anybody know anything about the office in the former Tailor's Guild > building - in Back Lane Dublin - the building was probably erected about > 1710 and is now the head-office of Ireland's National Trust. > > > thanks > Robert > > p.s. - why waste an email - > > anybody care to comment on the prospect that an Irishman/woman could be > legally descended from a catholic priest? - was the priest married first - > had a family. wife died, and then joined the priesthood? > > Anybody know whether an ordained priest of the Church of Ireland would > likely be married and have children? > > ______________________________ The Church of Ireland, as I understand it is actually a body of the Anglican Church, which is Protestant and allows the priests to marry. I do not know if at this time they are ordaining women as the Church of England is starting to do, but I am pretty sure that the Church of Ireland is Protestant. Not to be confused with the Roman Catholic Church, from the Holy See of the Vatican in Italy, which does not allow its priests to marry. Kathy Marie Garness

In a message dated 4/27/01 11:07:34 PM, sokar@earthlink.net writes: << Be a little careful. That is certainly true for the last 400 years but prior to that married parish priests were moderately common even though it was highly discouraged and even "illegal" in the eyes of Rome. If memory serves it is only after the Council of Trent (1540?) that married RC priests almost totally disappear. BTW; Our local bishop commented recently that there are some 130 in the US currently. All converts who were married and ordained prior to conversion. >> Ooops, you're right! Of course there were married priests in the Church and probably later in Ireland than many places, but I kind of assumed we were talking post-1600 or so. And how could I forget!!! Already married men were sometimes ordained. In fact, I have a friend who was an Anglican priest and converted to Roman Catholicism. After a few years he applied to become a Catholic priest. He had to pass a few tests and study up a little, but then he was ordained a Catholic priest, and of course, he still had his wife and lived in his own home, not in a rectory. (Yes, they re-ordained him, so there would be no doubt about the validity of his Orders.) They wouldn't assign him to parish work though (afraid it would "catch on." :-) Thanks for correcting me! Janet

Hello, Over the last few weeks I have asked about Ireland's Nationa Trust - to no avail? - in the meantime I'm waiting for a reply from the National Trust... I gather by the deafening silence to my query on Shamrock that nobody has had any dealings with Ireland's National Trust? - so does anybody know anything about the office in the former Tailor's Guild building - in Back Lane Dublin - the building was probably erected about 1710 and is now the head-office of Ireland's National Trust. thanks Robert p.s. - why waste an email - anybody care to comment on the prospect that an Irishman/woman could be legally descended from a catholic priest? - was the priest married first - had a family. wife died, and then joined the priesthood? Anybody know whether an ordained priest of the Church of Ireland would likely be married and have children?

<<He would not have been married (at least not in the eyes of the RC church)>> Be a little careful. That is certainly true for the last 400 years but prior to that married parish priests were moderately common even though it was highly discouraged and even "illegal" in the eyes of Rome. If memory serves it is only after the Council of Trent (1540?) that married RC priests almost totally disappear. BTW; Our local bishop commented recently that there are some 130 in the US currently. All converts who were married and ordained prior to conversion.

In Ardfert, Kerry, I used the Christening records and confirmed the existence( for my surname) of multiple men with the same first for most of the common first names. There were several cases where either the husbands or the wife's name was almost certainly wrong in a record. The less than one third of the marriages were in the marriage register for that parish. I suspect the parish priests often confused grooms or their brides with siblings.

SOME IRISH-AMERICAN MARRIAGES, Newport RI, 1894 These are tidbits and scraps left over from my own research. Only one of these (guess which one) is related to me. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Date: 25 April 1894 Groom, age, birthplace: William C. CHADWICK 22 Newport RI Bride, age: Mary Agnes QUINN 24 Ireland Groom Residence: Newport Bride Residence: Newport Groom Parents and nativity: James M Chadwick, Aus., Maria GRAY, Irish Bride Parents and nativity: Stephen QUINN, Bridget HARDING, both Irish Date: 25 April 1894 Groom, age, birthplace: Daniel John SULLIVAN 25 Irish Bride, age, birthplace: Ellen LEARY 29 Irish Groom Residence: Newport Bride Residence: Newport Groom Parents: John SULLIVAN and Kate SHEA Bride Parents: John Y. LEARY and Catherine SWEENEY Date: April 26 1894 Groom, age, birthplace: Cornelius RIORDAN 32, Ireland Bride, age: Bridget CURRAN 28, Ireland Groom Residence: Fitchburg Mass. Bride Residence: Newport RI Groom Parents and nativity: John RIORDAN, Catherine KELLIHER Bride Parents and nativity: Michael CURRAN, Hanora O'CONNOR Date: 26 April 1894 Groom, age: John DONNELLY 28 Irish Bride, age: Kate SHEA 26 Irish Groom Residence: Newport Bride Residence: Newport Gr. Parents and nativity: John DONNELLY & Kate CURRIN Irl. Br. Parents and nativity: Stephen & Bridget SHEA Irl. Date: 29 April 1894 Groom, age: James Robertson 33 Scotland Bride, age: Mary DOYLE 24 Irish Groom Residence: Newport Bride Residence: Newport Gr. Parents and nativity: James Robertson, Betsy Leckie, Scotch Br. Parents and nativity: John & Mary DOYLE, Irish Best wishes, Tony Riordan triordan@msn.com ______________________________________________________________ THE RIORDAN FAMILY GENEALOGY PAGE: http://www.geocities.com/triordan.geo/index.html

Thanks David, Janet, Gwen and Connie for your response. I will take your ideas on-board and will let you know the outcome. Regards. Brendan Jones.

Whoops sorry Maura, I didn't see your message to stop the replies till after I sent the below email and scrolled a little ways down my list, my apologies. Have a Great Day, Billie ----- Original Message ----- From: Billie <bjordan@dbscorp.net> To: <SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:32 PM Subject: Re: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre I must agree, but some of us have a little bit of them all like a heinz 57 (lol) so we gotta be proud of them all. But I think I like researching my Irish the best. :) And just, in my humble opinion, I thought the comment was kind of cute and not at all snide, snide is a little bit to harsh of a word to use, after all I took it that they were just kidding around. :) Have a Great Day, :) Billie JORDAN, LOWE, BLACKBURN, STEWART/D, IRWIN/IRVINE ----- Original Message ----- From: Elizabeth Laird <ealaird@2xtreme.net> To: <SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre Sure we are.....and Scot and German, as well.......but we gotta love those Irish the best! Elizabeth -----Original Message----- From: Michael Prichard <mprichard@cistron.nl> To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com <SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:28 PM Subject: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre >Dear Listers, > >I think the snide comment re Ellis and the English unnecessary! > >Some of us are both Irish and English....and proud of it > > >==== SHAMROCK Mailing List ==== >*** Helpful Hints for Successful >Searching >http://community.webtv.net/mpetzolt2/helpfulhints ** > > > ==== SHAMROCK Mailing List ==== ** Remember! No flames, chain letters, virus warnings or other off topic posts should be sent to the SHAMROCK list ** ==== SHAMROCK Mailing List ==== ** To unsubscribe from this list send unsubscribe to SHAMROCK-L-request@rootsweb.com for regular mode, or SHAMROCK-D-request@rootsweb.com for digest **

I must agree, but some of us have a little bit of them all like a heinz 57 (lol) so we gotta be proud of them all. But I think I like researching my Irish the best. :) And just, in my humble opinion, I thought the comment was kind of cute and not at all snide, snide is a little bit to harsh of a word to use, after all I took it that they were just kidding around. :) Have a Great Day, :) Billie JORDAN, LOWE, BLACKBURN, STEWART/D, IRWIN/IRVINE ----- Original Message ----- From: Elizabeth Laird <ealaird@2xtreme.net> To: <SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2001 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre Sure we are.....and Scot and German, as well.......but we gotta love those Irish the best! Elizabeth -----Original Message----- From: Michael Prichard <mprichard@cistron.nl> To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com <SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Thursday, April 26, 2001 12:28 PM Subject: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre >Dear Listers, > >I think the snide comment re Ellis and the English unnecessary! > >Some of us are both Irish and English....and proud of it > > >==== SHAMROCK Mailing List ==== >*** Helpful Hints for Successful >Searching >http://community.webtv.net/mpetzolt2/helpfulhints ** > > > ==== SHAMROCK Mailing List ==== ** Remember! No flames, chain letters, virus warnings or other off topic posts should be sent to the SHAMROCK list **

Some general reminders..... First, you cannot unsubscribe by sending a command to the list. See the directions on the list webpage url below. Secondly, please remember that what -you- think is a cute comment will undoubtabley be misinterpreted and tick off someone on the list, who will then send their comments and which will then start a thread where I have to step in (like now). If you have a comment you think is cute, please do not send it to the list. And those of you who respond to it are just as wrong as the original person. This is a genealogy only list, and (if I do say so myself) run fairly strictly on this. We're pretty well known for not tolerating this stuff, and people actually prefer this list for that reason. It bothers me greatly when I have to unsub someone for violating the list rules - especially as they are given out to each person and posted in many places. Now, lets all stop this nonsense and get back to genealogy. Listowner SHAMROCK <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Maura Petzolt mpetzolt2@webtv.net <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> SHAMROCK ROOTS homepage http://community.webtv.net/shamrockroots/SHAMROCKROOTS Helpful Hints for Successful Searching http://community.webtv.net/mpetzolt2/helpfulhints

In a message dated 4/27/01 8:01:15 AM, tricia.j@aardvark.net.au writes: << anybody care to comment on the prospect that an Irishman/woman could be legally descended from a catholic priest? - was the priest married first - had a family. wife died, and then joined the priesthood?>> That is very possible. Widowed men could be ordained to the priesthood. Of course, then they could not remarry. Of course, it is also possible to be descended from a priest who left the priesthood and was released from his vows and married. (He would have not been allowed to continue to function as a priest.) This would have been pretty rare until fairly recently. Third possibility, the priest fathered a child while a priest. He would not have been married (at least not in the eyes of the RC church) and the child would have been illegitimate. <<Anybody know whether an ordained priest of the Church of Ireland would likely be married and have children? >> Yes. In fact, it was more common than not. Janet C-S

In a message dated 4/27/01 6:16:13 AM, brendanj@gofree.indigo.ie writes: << Further searching showed the same couple getting married six years later in 1907 in another parish and in the adjoining County and the Cert proved that they were indeed the same couple. I got back to me researcher whom I thrust completely. He rechecked his records and confirmed his findings were that they were married in 1901 according to the church records. The first child born to this couple was in 1907. >> Interesting! What was the religion? I ask because, is it possible they were married a "second" time after one of them converted? Or is the names are common, are you ABSOLUTELY sure it is the same couple and not someone else with the same names (cousins, even)? How do you know they were the same couple? [OR--and this is a stretch---could the 1 of "1901" really be a 7? OK, the entry would not be on a 1901 page in a church record book if it hadn't occurred yet....., but maybe if the church book was a transcription, someone made a mistake? You should check the 1901 census--hopefully the 1901 date is before the census was taken... were they livng at home or as wife & husband? Let us know! Janet C-S

I have what I believe is an unusual puzzle and would appreciate any input re same. Some time back I got a professional genealogist to do some research for me. One of the records was a church entry for a marriage in 1901. Some years later I needed the Cert for this Marriage so I checked the Irish Marriage Index for the Volume and Page number etc. To my surprise there was no reference to this marriage. Further searching showed the same couple getting married six years later in 1907 in another parish and in the adjoining County and the Cert proved that they were indeed the same couple. I got back to me researcher whom I thrust completely. He rechecked his records and confirmed his findings were that they were married in 1901 according to the church records. The first child born to this couple was in 1907. Any input welcome either to me directly or to the list. Regards, Brendan Jones.

I am at my wits end researching my gg grandmother, Margaret CLANCY. She is listed on the NY marriage certificate as the mother of Elizabeth SIMONS. Elizabeth, daughter of Margaret CLANCY and George SIMONS was married in 1860. Elizabeth was born in Rochester (NY, I believe) and was 21 years of age when she married Ferdinand HANTKE, my g grandfather. That would put Elizabeth being born about 1839 so Margaret CLANCY was born about 1809-1819 I presume. Elizabeth had two siblings that I know of, Mary J(ane) and Zachariah SIMONS. She listed 82 Delancy St as the residence at time of marriage which is where Ferdinand lived. I found on Mary J's death certificate that Margaret was born in USA, but on a census it stated Margaret CLANCY (SIMONS), maternal parent, born in Ireland. I am quite sure she was born in Ireland. George SIMONS was from Germany. Can anyone help me with this elusive Margaret CLANCY and see if you possibly might have a Margaret CLANCY in your trees or research. For some reason, I think George died and possibly Margaret remarried - or that they divorced. Just a premonition. I know she lived in NY state, and children later lived in Brooklyn, and died there, and are buried in our family plot. However, I have NO idea where Margaret or George are buried. I do not know religion, occupation, or anything about them except the names of their children and what is on paper. I would not exclude MA or NJ for a period of time, either. I think they must have lived in Rochester because that is where Elizabeth was born. However, both Margaret CLANCY and George SIMONS are a common name and hard to narrow down. There were George SIMONS in Brooklyn on census, but none with a Margaret. I also think the name Jane was used in this family as a given name or a middle name. I need to knock down this brick wall. Any and all help, or ideas, is more than appreciated. I am willing to reimburse for any help. Susan s1036503010@mindspring.com

Dear Listers, I think the snide comment re Ellis and the English unnecessary! Some of us are both Irish and English....and proud of it

This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------12F6ACE07655D0AB4912A478 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit UNSUBSCRIBE --------------12F6ACE07655D0AB4912A478 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <SHAMROCK-L-request@rootsweb.com> Received: from mh3-sfba.mail.home.com ([24.0.95.134]) by femail24.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.20 201-229-121-120-20010223) with ESMTP id <20010426220539.FGEQ640.femail24.sdc1.sfba.home.com@mh3-sfba.mail.home.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:05:39 -0700 Received: from mx3-sfba.mail.home.com (mx3-sfba.mail.home.com [24.0.95.138]) by mh3-sfba.mail.home.com (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id PAA29473; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:05:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lists2.rootsweb.com (lists2.rootsweb.com [63.92.80.32]) by mx3-sfba.mail.home.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f3QM5DK28106; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from slist@localhost) by lists2.rootsweb.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f3QM4UJ10432; Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:04:30 -0700 Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 15:04:30 -0700 X-Original-Sender: templetheatre@mindspring.com Thu Apr 26 15:04:30 2001 Message-ID: <3AE89C67.EC5251BF@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 18:08:39 -0400 From: Tim Morrissey <templetheatre@mindspring.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD NSCPCD47 (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Old-CC: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SH] re Ellis Island comment from Temple Theatre References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010426212445.00a21210@pop3.cistron.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Resent-Message-ID: <jpKne.A.ziC.utJ66@lists2.rootsweb.com> To: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com Resent-From: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com X-Mailing-List: <SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com> archive/latest/1018 X-Loop: SHAMROCK-L@rootsweb.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: SHAMROCK-L-request@rootsweb.com X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 Well! You are not alone. I got one who said she was a "druid and an actress and was mightily offended". I think it is time to lighten up? Slainte, Tim Michael Prichard wrote: > Dear Listers, > > I think the snide comment re Ellis and the English unnecessary! > > Some of us are both Irish and English....and proud of it > > ==== SHAMROCK Mailing List ==== > *** Helpful Hints for Successful > Searching > http://community.webtv.net/mpetzolt2/helpfulhints ** ==== SHAMROCK Mailing List ==== ** To contact the listowner send a message to mpetzolt2@webtv.net ** --------------12F6ACE07655D0AB4912A478--