What IS it that makes parents have multiple baptisms...?

[Keith Sherwood]

Hi, Everyone,
Having spent an enjoyable few hours at the Guildhall Library today sorting out the exact ages of the children in two multiple baptisms - 3 at one go in 1823 at St. Botolph's Aldgate, and then 4 at another go in 1830 there - I was wondering why it is/was that parents have their children baptised in a job lot in this way.  Would it have been cheaper, or would it have been simply that Mum and Dad had suddenly/eventually thought that perhaps it was about time they had their offspring "done"?
Actually, I've just recollected that friends of ours had all four of their children christened recently, and I don't think I asked them the reason why...
The Guildhall Library, by the way, if people are lucky enough to be able to get there, is a wonderful place to research anything to do with the City of London; extremely obliging staff, and an apt display at the moment - for me - on Cheapside.  One of the items was a drawing of the front elevations of every house in that street in 1838-1840 drawn by a John Tallis.  Was able to take a photocopy of the page showing the building where my gt-gt-gt-grandfather traded from as a teadealer at exactly that time.
But I'm digressing as usual from the main theme re multiple baptisms...
Very best wishes,
Keith

[ricky1]

Hi Keith
Probably got a discount for a job lot . To be honest havnt a clue, unless there wernt enough vicars around at that time and they only came round so often

ricky

[Bill749]

I think Ricky probably hit the nail on the head - it was cheaper to have them done as a "job lot"! 

Bill

[Pegasuss]

One other (possible) reason, which I have encountered a few times is a 'Mixed Marriage'!

I found one Family that not only had groups of Children Christened/Baptised on the same day, but on further research found the same Children Christened/Baptismed at another Church (different Denomination)!

[aghadowey]

Know of one family where 10 children were baptised together. Story is told that father brought half the children to church and told Rector to make a start while he went for the rest. Recently discovered that the parents were only married around this time. Father had been Presbyterian and mother was Catholic but family were baptised Church of Ireland. Am wondering if Rector made baptism of children a condition for marriage. Or marriage a condition for baptism.
Father was born 1848 m.1 in 1868 & had 5 children, m.2 & had 3 children, m.3 1920 (she was born c1890) & had 12 children. Ages for children ranges from 1869 to 1922.

[Dibley]

Sometimes parents could only receive 'Parish Relief' - a kind of 'Dole payment' from the Parish Council if all the family were baptised.  This could be one of many reasons....  Baptism is free!

[Berlin-Bob]

There is another topic about this here:

Baptism, - Multiple B. in the RootsChat Lexicon

Bob


ps. I've added this topic, too 

[LizzieW]

My g.gran had her 2nd and 3rd children baptised at the same time.  I think she didn't get round to baptising her 2nd child, and when the 3rd was born, she must have been ill and in need of baptising, because she died soon afterwards and I suppose she took the opportunity to baptise the 2nd child at the same time.  I haven't found any baptisms for her following children.

Liz

[stanmapstone]

I think Ricky probably hit the nail on the head - it was cheaper to have them done as a "job lot"! 

Bill

Under Ecclesiastical law no fee can be charged for the administration of Sacraments. “Sacramenta sunt libere conferenda” is the rule prescribed by Pope Innocent III at the Lateran Council and contained in the Decretals of Gregory IX. This rule is emphasized by the canon of Archbishop Stephen Langton made at the Council of Oxford in 1222, though the canon suggests that a fee may be payable where there is an ancient custom to that effect.
One nineteenth century Bishop said that to charge such a fee was “downright and glaring simony.”
The Baptismal Fees Abolition Act was passed in 1872, under which no fee can be charged for baptism notwithstanding any ancient custom to the contrary. 

The purpose of this act was to make the law clear in respect of fees for baptisms or for registering baptisms, it appeared that fees were being charged in some parishes, and it was intended to put an end to this system.

In one case where a rector demanded a fee of two shillings for a baptism legal opinion was that;
a)   No fee can be claimed for the registration of a baptism;
b)   It is very doubtful whether in any case, even where there has been a custom to do so, a fee can be asked for the administration of baptism;
c)   It is certain that no such fee can be recovered by law;
d)   It is also certain that any clergyman refusing to baptize or to register the baptism on the ground of no fee having been paid can be proceeded against and punished under the 68th and 70th Canons of the Act of 52 George III., cap. 146.

Stan