Catholics
- Thread starter Elma
- Start date
Elizabeth
According to the National Archives:
Between 1754 and 1837 it was a legal requirement to marry in the Church of England and though many Catholics were still married illegally according to catholic rites, registers for these illegal marriages were not generally kept since it might have been dangerous to do so.
Between 1754 and 1837 it was a legal requirement to marry in the Church of England and though many Catholics were still married illegally according to catholic rites, registers for these illegal marriages were not generally kept since it might have been dangerous to do so.
Andromeda
Tenacity is her middle name
Not just Catholics - any non-conformist except Jews & Quakers.
Sometimes you might get a clue from them marrying by licence rather than having banns read, and there was nothing stopping them baptising their children in a catholic church. I've also seen baptisms in non-catholic registers with a note that they were 'papist'.
Depending on what period you're interested in, there are also the papist returns, although individual names aren't often mentioned.
Sometimes you might get a clue from them marrying by licence rather than having banns read, and there was nothing stopping them baptising their children in a catholic church. I've also seen baptisms in non-catholic registers with a note that they were 'papist'.
Depending on what period you're interested in, there are also the papist returns, although individual names aren't often mentioned.
Elma
Well-Known Member
Thank you Jan and Andomeda.
What never ceases to amaze me is how much there is to finding out about our ancestors. With many of the dates sorted and people identified, it doesn't stop there.
I am presuming my great great grandparents were catholics. They had come over from Ireland in the early 1800's before the potato famine. By the time of the next generation, there is little evidence of any of them being catholics, however the early signs really point to that. I was just trying to find out more.
I did find a baptism for one of my great great grandparents children, this started me wondering.
It was for Mary Connell whose burial was on 18 March 1838. She was 8 months. The burial record is on Ancestry.
England & Wales, Non-Conformist and Non-Parochial Registers, 1567-1970
I previously dismissed it because I wasn't sure if I could rely on it. When I opened the image I could see the page and entry but nothing at the top of the page to say what burial ground it was. Ancestry have then transcribed this as Spa Fields, London. Denomination Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion. From experience I know Ancestry can lump things together, especially if they don't fit the brief.
In further reading about Spa Fields at this time. I found out, this was one of the most notorious burial grounds of the time. It was the cheapest and this gave rise to serious overcrowding. Bodies even very recent ones were dug up, burnt or limed to make way for others.
I am hoping the non-conformists and my great great parents used a different area, as I have also read that they did have a seperate burial ground.
It's the little things that fascinate me and how for years, the catholic ancestors in my family were just a passing thought. Now I need to know more.
What never ceases to amaze me is how much there is to finding out about our ancestors. With many of the dates sorted and people identified, it doesn't stop there.
I am presuming my great great grandparents were catholics. They had come over from Ireland in the early 1800's before the potato famine. By the time of the next generation, there is little evidence of any of them being catholics, however the early signs really point to that. I was just trying to find out more.
I did find a baptism for one of my great great grandparents children, this started me wondering.
It was for Mary Connell whose burial was on 18 March 1838. She was 8 months. The burial record is on Ancestry.
England & Wales, Non-Conformist and Non-Parochial Registers, 1567-1970
I previously dismissed it because I wasn't sure if I could rely on it. When I opened the image I could see the page and entry but nothing at the top of the page to say what burial ground it was. Ancestry have then transcribed this as Spa Fields, London. Denomination Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion. From experience I know Ancestry can lump things together, especially if they don't fit the brief.
In further reading about Spa Fields at this time. I found out, this was one of the most notorious burial grounds of the time. It was the cheapest and this gave rise to serious overcrowding. Bodies even very recent ones were dug up, burnt or limed to make way for others.
I am hoping the non-conformists and my great great parents used a different area, as I have also read that they did have a seperate burial ground.
It's the little things that fascinate me and how for years, the catholic ancestors in my family were just a passing thought. Now I need to know more.
I've just had a look at the image (it's also at The Genealogist), and the piece number at the bottom is RG4/4366. TNA's catalogue confirms that this is Spa Fields burial ground, 1825-1838. A quick search for Connell with that reference number at The Genealogist brings up 22 results, but there would presumably be more outside that period.
The Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion is a protestant denomination, but as you suggest, it may be that Spa Fields was chosen for the burial because it was cheaper. The place and denomination of Mary's baptism are probably more likely to reflect the parents' own leanings and background.