Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Starting to feel at home
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    96

    Default Circumcision recorded in Irish Baptism record

    For information only - not asking for help.

    Before civil records began in 1837 in England, Jews sometimes had their children baptised so that their births were recorded. I've never seen an image of such an entry for England, but I found one from an Irish Catholic, Dublin,1854, on Ancestry.com.

    Instead of the name the baby was known by - Maurice Samuel Rubenstein - the name in the record is Maurice Mary Michael Rubenstein. (I wondered about 'Mary', but that is indeed what appears to be written.)
    The birth and baptismal date are given, the baby being about one year old at the time. There is a final column for noting special circumstances. In this is written:

    of the Seed of Israel
    circumcised 8th May/53
    baptised [.......] [insci......]

    Sadly, I can't make out what that final line says. The information in this column is not given in Ancestry's transcription; I found it only by reading the image of the original parish record carefully.

    I wonder how often this information was entered in the baptismal entries of Jewish babies.

  2. #2
    Famous for offering help & advice
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cheshire
    Posts
    1,623

    Default

    The image can also be seen at https://registers.nli.ie/registers/v...ge/14/mode/1up

    - useful for those without an Ancestry sub, and it seems a better quality image to me too.

    I'm not 100% certain of this, but I think it might be "parentibus inscient." (including the quote marks), which is Latin for "without the knowledge of the parents".

    Maybe there were family members who were insistent that the child should be baptised regardless of the parents' wishes. If this was consistent with the church's outlook, the priest might happily go along with it - or he might even have instigated it himself.

    It just seems wrong, on so many levels...

  3. #3
    Starting to feel at home
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    96

    Default parentibus inscient

    Quote Originally Posted by arthurk View Post
    The image can also be seen at https://registers.nli.ie/registers/v...ge/14/mode/1up

    - useful for those without an Ancestry sub, and it seems a better quality image to me too.

    I'm not 100% certain of this, but I think it might be "parentibus inscient." (including the quote marks), which is Latin for "without the knowledge of the parents".

    Maybe there were family members who were insistent that the child should be baptised regardless of the parents' wishes. If this was consistent with the church's outlook, the priest might happily go along with it - or he might even have instigated it himself.

    It just seems wrong, on so many levels...
    Thanks for this additional information. I'll have to think about this. It would indeed be very wrong if family members had the child baptised without the parents' concern (though effectively no harm done to the child). I'm not sure who in the family would have been in Ireland (unless a special trip were made), nor who might have wanted to do this. This family isn't actually related to me - a peripheral part of my research. But a curious item.

    Eve

  4. #4
    Starting to feel at home
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    96

    Default

    It's interesting that while this is recorded as "parentibus inscient" and could be literally without the parents' knowledge, the baby's circumcision and date are recorded. I wonder if recording that the parents didn't know was a kind of formality, while still getting the child's birth and circumcision dates recorded.

    "Only in January 1864 did it become obligatory to register births, ALL marriages, and deaths with the local authorities."

  5. #5
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Co. Antrim, Northern Ireland
    Posts
    587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eve Mary View Post


    Instead of the name the baby was known by - Maurice Samuel Rubenstein - the name in the record is Maurice Mary Michael Rubenstein. (I wondered about 'Mary', but that is indeed what appears to be written.)

    The Catholic church likes a child to have a saints name. It’s quite common for Mary to be used (for obvious reasons). You often get males in Ireland with a baptismal middle name of Mary.
    ELWYN

  6. #6
    Starting to feel at home
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Elwyn Soutter View Post
    The Catholic church likes a child to have a saints name. It’s quite common for Mary to be used (for obvious reasons). You often get males in Ireland with a baptismal middle name of Mary.
    I assumed it was something like that, though I don't think I knew about men being given Mary as a baptismal name. But have figured out that the Italian Mario is the only masculine name I know of that is derived from a feminine name (as opposed to what must be hundreds, if not thousands that are a feminine form of a masculine name). I don't know if it was coincidence or not that Michael was chosen, being both a Catholic saint and Maurice's father's name, or simply convenient.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: