RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: las camelias on Tuesday 06 November 07 13:28 GMT (UK)
-
How long after the birth of a baby would the baptism have taken place in the 1700's?
I thought it would have been quite quickly due to the high mortality rate and the fear of a babe dying without having been baptised. Although there are always exceptions, does anyone know what the 'norm' was?
LC
-
i have a book at home, (i am at work now) what tells me this, i read it before but can't remember it will look tonight and get back to you.
-
Can be quick but you do see ome exceptions
Bob
-
Hi LC,
if you look up Baptism in the RootsChat Lexicon (http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,234766.0.html) you will see several topics about it, including discussions on requirements for baptism, half-baptism, adult, multiple and private baptisms.
That should give you a lot to think about, on ages at baptism :)
Bob
-
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction Bob. I feel very privileged to get a response from a Global Moderator!
That will give me some bedside reading tonight.
LC
-
hiya
i am at home now and have looked in my book this is what it tells me:~
Although baptisim was supposed to be on the first Sunday after birth, or on the next Sunday thereafter, in the few instances where dates of birth were given, this rarely happend weeks months or years first might elaspe
always search a broad period so that you can pick up baptisis of siblings as well fo that pf your direct ancestor in case your information about the birth was erronous. The eldest child was often baptised in the mothers home church which was generally where she had married.
-
Thanks for that Toni, very kind.
So I take it the 'norm' was within 2 weeks? I'm writing a piece that includes baptisms in 1700's and couldn't find anything anywhere about the 'norm'.
I didn't know Rootschat had a Lexicon, so I've learned something else today.
Have a good evening
LC
-
longest gap I've seen is 1652 - 1663 (interregnum etc)
-
the baptisim was supposed to take place on the first Sunday after the birth or the next Sunday thereafter.
so yes within 2 weeks but i am sure people on here will tell you many baptisims where this was not the case.
some baptisim records do have adult baptisim or the like next to them.
-
Yes, thanks, I do understand that baptisms often took place sometimes many years after the birth, it was just the average time after birth according to custom that I was after. I shall go with 2 weeks!
LC
-
Digressing slightly (me digress – never!) from your actual enquiry – but still about baptisms of years ago. I’m currently transcribing local baptismal registers for Non-Conformist Churches around the 1850s, for my local Records Office.
Something I’ve found interesting are that some families had a “whole batch” done – 3 or 4 children baptised at one go – ages ranging up to about 8 years old. The oldest baptism that I’ve seen recorded in this book was for a 16-year-old!
I mentioned this to one of the staff and she told me that the oldest baptism she’d come across was someone in their 30s! She was carrying out some work for a family, and couldn’t find the baptism of one of the boys. She explored all “avenues” she could think of, but to no avail. She was later doing research about the later years of the same family – and that’s when she discovered the “baptism” she had been looking for – which was carried out when the “baby” was in his thirties!
-
I had 3 siblings way back in my tree all baptised on the same day [ triplets was my first thought]
But no, they were aged 3 months,2 years and 5.
My mother was baptised when she was 6. I was 4 when I was dunked. I dont know why it was left till later
Everybody else seems to be 'conventional'
-
Just come across your posting and as I've searched over a thousand yearsworth of BT' and /or PR's (well over a hundred years from most of the places in my interests) and although there might have been guidance and/or a rule concerning the length of time between birth of a child and its baptism, nobody took much notice of it.
For example:-
In 1802 Badminton BT's is:-
"Frances Cecil Daughter of the Rev. Charles Talbot and the Lady Elizabeth his wife was born October the 11th and baptized 21st Dec'r?"
and in Bisley GLS BT's of 1794 are :-
Rachael of Edw'd Whiting ag'd 3 P (P = pauper)
Thomas of James Gardiner 7 yrs old
1760 May31 Thomas of Daniel Mason 5 yrs old
John of Daniel Mason 10? yrs old
One often finds multiple baptisms of one family's children. Perhaps as a result of a vicar's "blitz" after the Bishop's visitation and baptism of an adult not long before marriage seems not all that rare.
Regards
Chas
P.S
1760 May 9 Daniel Mason . . . . . . 32 yrs old!!
P.P.S.
1760 Bisley GLS BT's also give this marriage:-
May 27 Daniel Mason Mary Davis.............. :o
Q.E.D.
-
There may also be a problem with private baptisms and later public presentations in church. If a baby was baptised privately - ie perhaps it was sickly, the parents were supposed to have it publically baptised in church afterwards, but sometimes didn't bother.
Reading the diaries of Parson James Woodforde, quite often he privately baptised a child but there is no record of that baptism in the PRs.
Carole
-
With much appreciation to all who have contributed to this topic. I have plenty to mull over, thanks to rootschatters wherever you are
LC