Translation of Latin note in marriage record

xantex · Post by **xantex** » 08 Aug 2011 19:59

I wonder if anyone can help with translating the latin comment written in the margin of this marriage record. Firstly I am not sure what is referred to by the date in 1877, and secondly what exactly is consanguinity in the second degree - would this mean first cousins or second cousins (the mothers of the bride and groom had the same maiden name). Any help would be welcome.

ID:5362

gerrynuk · Post by **gerrynuk** » 08 Aug 2011 21:40

Not sure of the exact words but I think the gist of it is that the couple had undergone a civil marriage in 1877 and that they needed a dispensation (because they were blood relatives - possibly first cousins) before they could get a church (presumably Catholic) marriage.

Post by **tatewise** » 08 Aug 2011 22:14

I am not a Latin expert, I have simply experimented with Google Translate at http://translate.google.com.

This is what I entered after some trial error:

Finn & Mealey, Contraxerunt Civiliter 20 Augusti 1877 in Fano areath'co St Petri, L'pool, Cum Sint Consanguinei in 2nd quadu, super impedimento hoc rite dispensatum est.

This is the Google translation:

Finn & Mealey, 20 August 1877 have contracted by civil authority in the temple of areath'co St. Peter, L'pool, since they are in respect to our kindred in the 2nd, upon this impediment is properly dispensed.

xantex · Post by **xantex** » 08 Aug 2011 23:05

Many thanks for your suggestions. After some efforts on google translate I think fano acath'co is short for fano acatholico - which translates as non-catholic church.
If they first married in a CofE church for some reason, I wonder why its described as a civil contract? Unless the catholic priest/church didn't recognise a C of E marriage as a proper marriage??

Thanks anyway.

Post by **NickWalker** » 08 Aug 2011 23:15

I assume this is their first marriage:

http://www.lancashirebmd.org.uk/cgi/pma ... ra&area=LL

xantex · Post by **xantex** » 09 Aug 2011 18:41

Yes - that would be when they first married. We are not sure why they married twice - perhaps if they were first cousins the catholic priest first time around refused to marry them, and they either turned to another religion (there seem to be several ST Peters in Liverpool) or to the registry office - then perhaps a different priest later agreed to allow them to 're-marry'.

Post by **NickWalker** » 09 Aug 2011 19:26

The link I sent shows clearly that they married in St Peter rather than a registry office. If you fill in the form that the link points to then for £9 you could get a copy of the marriage certificate sent to you. The certificate may also make it clearer which St Peter's it is.

Cheers

Nick

xantex · Post by **xantex** » 09 Aug 2011 19:54

Thanks Nick. Will be applying for certificate. Many thanks.

gerrynuk · Post by **gerrynuk** » 09 Aug 2011 20:04

It is clear from the Latin text that the couple received a dispensation before they could 'marry'in the Catholic Church. It wasn't just a friendly priest agreeing to marry them. The dispensation would have been granted by the bishop (you could easily find out who the 'Ordinary' (or Bishop) was at this date by checking a Catholic Directory for the year) and the papers might still be available in the Catholic archives - presumably the Catholic Diocese of Liverpool.

Family Historian User Group