Help with deciphering occupation and conflicting baptism records please.

[Maiden Stone]

I and someone else have answered on the other thread.
Would it be an idea to merge both threads to avoid duplication?

[familydar]

My first thought was two infants, the first of whom died just before the second one died, but gro website suggests only one.

Next thought was late registration - I think parents had to pay more or were fined if a birth wasn't registered within a certain period of time, so birth date on cert might be later than the actual event.  Happened with my grandfather, the whole family knew when his birthday was but birth cert said a couple of weeks later. 

But you are looking at baps.

I wonder if parents had sickly child bap privately within hours/days of birth but by the time they got round to doing it "properly" they'd lost track of when the child was actually born.  They probably didn't keep a diary or have a kitchen calendar for reference even if they could read.

The birth reg was Q2 (well within limit if born late May or June) so I can't see they'd have deliberately given a later birth date by the time the child was bap in church.  I think a mistake.

Have you seen actual PR in all three cases?  Sometimes BTs tell a slightly different story.  Poor lighting, scratchy pen, transcription errors aren't anything new!

Jane :-)

[Maiden Stone]

Next thought was late registration - I think parents had to pay more or were fined if a birth wasn't registered within a certain period of time, so birth date on cert might be later than the actual event.  Happened with my grandfather, the whole family knew when his birthday was but birth cert said a couple of weeks later. 

But you are looking at baps.

I wonder if parents had sickly child bap privately within hours/days of birth but by the time they got round to doing it "properly" they'd lost track of when the child was actually born.  They probably didn't keep a diary or have a kitchen calendar for reference even if they could read.

The birth reg was Q2 (well within limit if born late May or June) so I can't see they'd have deliberately given a later birth date by the time the child was bap in church.  I think a mistake.

Have you seen actual PR in all three cases?  Sometimes BTs tell a slightly different story.  Poor lighting, scratchy pen, transcription errors aren't anything new!

Jane :-)

These are the same opinions as I was about to post on the other thread.

[BenRalph]

St Peter's is the parish church.

[Maiden Stone]

Overlooker as occupation may have been a mistake. Have you looked at other baptisms on same pages of both registers to see if another child's father was an overlooker or a bricklayer? They may have been mixed up and wrong occupations entered.
Whoever was writing up register may have been transcribing someone else's handwriting and mistook bricklayer for overlooker.

[Maiden Stone]

Thanks Jen, I've replied on the other thread.

[Maiden Stone]

Overlooker was a term commonly used in the textile industry. I have an overlooker ancestor.  Calling a bricklayer an overlooker would be confusing.   I think a bricklayer would always be called a bricklayer. If he was a foreman bricklayer he was still a bricklayer. Exception might be if a bricklayer with his own business became so successful and employed so many other bricklayers and allied trades that he never had to lay his hands on a brick again. One of my stonemasons was calling himself a contractor around this time, when bricks were taking over from stone.

[KGarrad]

St Saviours was founded by members of the Oxford Movement, sometimes termed as "Tractarianism".

The Movement was the start of modern Anglo-Catholicism.

This might explain the necessity for a baptism in a "standard" Anglican church, in addition to the Anglo-Catholic baptism?

[KGarrad]

I have posted on the other thread re St. Saviours being an Anglo-Catholic church, founded by The Oxford Movement.

Being essentially a sect with the Anglican community, maybe a second "standard" baptism was considered necessary?