|
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Baptisms - Mancetter (Read 1891 times)
|
willow154
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 3157
Mum - Such love
|
Interesting, Stan.
I thought BumbleB's local historian's theory was interesting; so I looked to see if I could find anything that might throw some light on this. This does show a reverse situation, but it is interesting to see the control that landowners had over church attendance:
Rural Society and the Anglican Clergy, 1815-1914 By Robert Lee
* google booksearch. Page 177.
I wonder if this particular landowner was related the clergyman at that time? Was he a patron?
I remember that my elderly neighbour, back in the l870s once told me that he had been moved away from the Wollaton area the area where the Middleton family had their main home and estate. He worked as a gardener and helped on the farm; living in a tithe house/cottage. He was moved to Trowell - reason given that he didn't attend church frequently enough.
Tom Quinney would have been born about 1895 I think. Lovely old gentleman.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
willow154
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 3157
Mum - Such love
|
Hi Dobby,
I went to my local FHS meeting tonight and spoke to my friend, Lloyd, who is a Reverend (and an exceptionally experienced genealogist/local historian, too - he started the group years ago).
I asked him what he thought, and he said it was probably a very conscientious vicar who:
performed a lot of private baptisms to ensure that no child died (as many did) and later received them into church
P could stand for those who came from that parish, as opposed to those who brought their child/children back to their home parish to be baptised
Or the Pauper child - someone trying to remind himself of his parishioners circumstances
Food for thought, at least.
Sounds as if you had a busy day.
Paulene 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
willow154
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 3157
Mum - Such love
|
P.S. Just use the control and F keys together, which will bring up a search box to search the page, Dobby.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
willow154
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 3157
Mum - Such love
|
Pleasure, Dobby - anyway must get to bed.
Goodnight, Dobby - take care
Paulene
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Al in Vane
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 666
I've not edited my PROFILE yet
|
I have to say that this has been a fascinating subject (I hope others have found it the same and learned from it) and we have come full circle to my thoughts when it first came up some time ago. In those days not all priests were the second or third born sons of wealthy families given the job to keep them out of mischief but many were and this proves that some at least had their minds on the job and were no doubt also looking for 'Brownie Points' for the number of baptisms they could show their 'higher-ups'. I suggested at the beginning that it was the work of an individual priest who put his own stamp on a particular parish and I think that view has been proven.
My brother (Reverend) confirmed last night that their has never been a tax on baptisms so any priest charging it would have been lining his own pockets out of those of the poor.
He also told me that anyone can carry out a baptism, nurse, midwife etc, and it was done, and still is, on a regular basis if the child was in danger of dying and there was no priest available, once baptised the child cannot be baptised again. My brother's first born was in fact baptised by a nurse in the hospital and he did not find out until he saw the vicar who told him, so his child was then 'received into church' which is where we came in!!
That was new to me and something I had not realised.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stanmapstone
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 6593
My answers only refer to England and Wales
|
My brother (Reverend) confirmed last night that their has never been a tax on baptisms so any priest charging it would have been lining his own pockets out of those of the poor.
Individual incumbents may have expected a fee where there was an ancient custom to that effect, but as a baptism is the initiation into the Christian Church then people would be encouraged to have it done, and not be put off by being charged a fee.
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, in the 19th century, 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.
It has always been recognised in ecclesiastical law that a person who is not a clergyman, can baptise in an emergency, indeed in the Middle Ages midwives were licensed by bishops with that eventuality in mind. They were advised that they should under no circumstances neglect baptism in the presence of witnesses, if there was any likelihood of a child dying before the arrival of a priest.
Stan
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
|
|
|
|
|
