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.