I doubt there is an average distance, but in the early to mid 1800's in Kilkenny, how far would a gentleman go to find a bride? Obviously, travel was quite different than what is available today. Did they typically stay within a parish or someone in the parish know of someone in another "neighboring" parish?
How often would one even travel to other counties?
Thank you
Pat Foley
Pat:
My opinion.
If the bride and groom were Roman Catholic, I would think that the distance would be ten miles or less. If the groom lived close to a border with another parish or even another county then the bride could have come from another parish or county.
If the parties were Church of Ireland then I think there would be a greater chance that the distance between the bride and groom could be much greater than ten miles.
Roger McDonnell
We're running a fundraiser to get our website Ad-Free if you can we'd love your support, head over to https://www.gofundme.com/f/were-going-ad-free-make-our-website-free-of-ads for more information ***
Pat,
I read a history of the parish of Galloon in Co. Fermanagh where the author said that in the mid 1800s you usually married someone “within an asses bark” of where you lived. (How far can an asses bark be heard? Perhaps half a mile). Most courting was done on foot. Maintaining a relationship with someone 20 miles away was tricky if you had to walk there. That was the norm, though once the bicycle arrived in rural Ireland (mid 1860s) people started travelling further afield. And there were always people whose profession involved a bit of travel, so they might marry some distance away (stone masons, soldiers, policemen & railway workers are all examples of folk who might not necessarily marry the girl next door. But many people did).
Thank you, both, for your replies. That's how I've been approaching my research. I have a couple that baptized two sons in 1813 and 1815. No other known siblings because the records of baptisms are non-existent from 1818-1828. I started searching through marriages, starting about 20 years from their births, if available, in their parish and the surrounding parishes. I've found numerous possibilities but can't know if these are the correct people. Are they siblings or cousins getting married or witnessing the marriage? Were the witnesses considered best man and maid of honor at that time? There are also baptisms with sponsors that are probably related but also, obviously close friends, if the surnames aren't the same.
If the naming tradition was followed in a family, wouldn't each son's first-born son be named after the grandfather? Traditionally, if John's first born is Pat, John's father was a Pat. If his second son is John, his father-in-law would be John, correct? Now let's just say the original John had a brother named Pat. His first born would also be named Pat, correct? That's where I can't tell if a Pat getting married is John's Pat or Pat's Pat!! Very frustrating!
Pat,
As far as witnesses to the wedding were concerned, church and civil law required 2. They could be anyone (including a minor) provided they had the capacity to confirm the event. Typically they were parents, brothers or sisters but there was no rhyme nor reason. (I saw a Church of Ireland register where the same person was a witness at many weddings over several years. He turned out to be the church Sexton. Why he was pressed into service so often is not clear but he evidently was.).
Sponsors for baptisms were supposed to be folk able to guide the child in life and were often relations of the child. But with the Irish naming pattern, as you say, it is very hard to work out which Pat was which. Occasionally where a married couple were the sponsors, the wife’s maiden name was used. But not always! See here:
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=813534.9
With the naming pattern, you could have a situation where the father was Pat, his father was also Pat and the bride’s father was Pat. Tradition says that there should therefore be 3 boys all named Pat. Some families did do that but then called 2 of the children by a different name altogether. (So Pat in the baptismal record but John in real life). Others used common sense and just departed from the naming pattern tradition.
Elwyn,
These are Catholic parishes I'm reading through in Kilkenny.
According to My 2xGrandfther's (Edward) marriage in LaSalle, IL in 1857, his parents were listed as John Foley and Ellen Cavanagh. Edward had two sons, John and Edward. Edward never married but John had three sons; Edward, John and Robert. That Edward was my grandfather and he had two sons, Robert and James (my father). It seemed they were at least trying to follow a naming tradition. I found a John Foley and Eleanor Kavanagh in Castlecomer parish baptizing a Pat (1813) and John (1815). That's when I started looking for marriages of those two sons and any other sibling/cousins.
These are from Castlecomer and Muckalee parishes. So, James Foley marries Judith Curran in 1835 in Muckalee. In 1839, Judith witnesses with a John Foley the marriages of her (sister or cousin?) in Castlecomer.. Is John a brother or cousin of James? Since Judith got married in Muckalee, you would think if they were sisters Bridget would also have married in Muckalee. So, maybe cousins?
There were only 18 Foley households between Castlecomer (15), Clough and Muckalee around 1850 according to Griffith's valuation. I would think more than a few were related.