RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: bucksboy on Wednesday 01 December 10 21:02 GMT (UK)
-
Whilst hunting down relatives using various tried methods. I have usually taken the year of baptism as an approximate years of birth.
However. I have since found that quite a big lump of one family were baptised in one 'job lot'. The oldest sibling being 12 years older than the youngest sibling.
These occured in 1870. Obviously I had the census to help me out with ages, so on the strength of those I ordered certs.
If we get back to baptisms in earlier years, say 1750's. Any given child could have been born 10 years earlier, considering what I have since found out in 1870
So when looking for marriages, an assumption can be made that the particular person could only be 10-12 years old at marriage given the baptism year, and discard the marriage.
So how do you sort it out, if the marriage found is the only feasible one, if the baptism is right as well. :D
Steve. :)
-
I've been doing transcriptions of registers from the mid 17th century through to the early 19th and what you've described isn't rare although it also isn't common. I've also found examples where an earlier register seems to have been copied and several people from the same family recorded together.
That being so, I'd say that, if the marriage is feasible then accept it but check the baptismal record as well - and check whether a "job lot" have been recorded.
At times I'm sure our ancestors conspired against us knowing somehow that we'd be looking back and having only paper records to go on!!
-
To look at the other end of the scale the parish registers for death mostly give an age. So it would be possible to work back from there. :)
Not sure what we do with the Clarks, Jones and Smiths mind you ::) ::) ;D
-
Yes, thank heavens for the non-mobility of our distant ancestors - where people 2 miles away were strange and probably demons 8) Born, living and dying in the same parish...
-
I find the period from 1783 to about 1800 very bad. Several of my family lines stop around this period as a result of not being able to find baptisms. First, there was the increasing rise of non-conformity and there being few records for Methodists for this period (many Methodist registers don't start until about 1818). Secondly, from 1783 to 1794 Stamp Duty at 3d per baptism was levied. Many of the poor (except paupers for whom the fee was waived) could not afford or were not prepared to pay the duty so that many children were not baptised during this period. There were some 'job lots' of baptisms after 1794. However, many children born in this period were not baptised and some families were not aware of the repeal of the legislation after 1794.
It was, of course, because of the defects in the system of parochial registration that national civil registration of births, marriages and deaths commenced in 1837 for England and Wales.
Nigel
-
Yes, thank heavens for the non-mobility of our distant ancestors - where people 2 miles away were strange and probably demons 8) Born, living and dying in the same parish...
I wish more of mine were non-mobile. They seemed quite happy to walk, get on a horse or travel on a ship (or just (dis)appear) ....... ::)
Nigel
-
. Secondly, from 1783 to 1794 Stamp Duty at 3d per baptism was levied.
Nigel
Just to point out it was not a duty on Baptism, if the baptism was not registered then no duty was paid :)
Under the Stamp Act of 1783 (23 Geo. III, c.67) a tax of three pence was levied on each Church Register entry of birth, baptism or marriage, except for paupers. The parson or other receiving the tax was allowed two shillings in the pound for the trouble involved. There was such a popular outcry against this tax that it was speedily repealed in 1794 (34 Geo, c.11), however it is interesting to note the sudden increase in the numbers of those declared to be paupers over this short period. As has been pointed out this act was a direct inducement to defective registration.
Stan
-
Just to point out it was not a duty on Baptism, if the baptism was not registered then no duty was paid :)
..................
Stan
If that was the case could a child be baptised without registration of that baptism? I am aware in some cases that false entries of parents being 'paupers' were recorded when there was refusal to pay.
Nigel
-
There is nothing in the Book of Common Prayer on the Ministration of Baptism that says a baptism has to be registered. The registration of Baptisms, Weddings and Burials, was only required under Thomas Cromwell's order of 5th Sept 1538.
Just to add that it has always been recognised in ecclesiastical law that a person who is not a clergyman, can baptize 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
-
I also had a 3 X Gt.Aunt born 1823. She was baptised 4 weeks before her marriage in 1846, the oldest of two children.
Her sibling was male and baptised 3 months after birth in 1824. If it was a case of affordability for a baptism, I wonder if male children took precedence.
I suppose we/I will never know.
But still, the baptism year is still a little bit of lottery when searching for rellies d.o.b's.
Yep........had the Smiths/Smyths/Smithes/Smih/Smirt, but mine were easy. They lazy b's didn't travel much further than the foot of the garden. Oh lucky me. ;D ;D
Steve. :)
-
There is nothing in the Book of Common Prayer on the Ministration of Baptism that says a baptism has to be registered. The registration of Baptisms, Weddings and Burials, was only required under Thomas Cromwell's order of 5th Sept 1538.
..............................
Stan
Was the Order / legislation of 1538 (amended 1597) still in force in 1783? If yes, then the Stamp Act of 1783 effectively imposed a tax on baptisms as a result of there already being an existing legal requirement for registration.
Nigel
-
coincidentally Durham has just posted church records on its website and on one baptism record the vicar considerately wrote "adult" after the name.
-
As people have said, its fairly common to see groups of siblings baptised at the same time, when their ages may vary from a babe in arms to a teenager.
People were also sometimes baptised just prior to their marriage if they hadn't been as a child, or had perhaps been baptised in a different sect/denomination or whatever. My own grandmother was baptised just prior to her second marriage when she was in her seventies.
-
I'd just be happy to find a baptism for some of my lot :D
Jan ;)
-
There is nothing in the Book of Common Prayer on the Ministration of Baptism that says a baptism has to be registered. The registration of Baptisms, Weddings and Burials, was only required under Thomas Cromwell's order of 5th Sept 1538.
..............................
Stan
Was the Order / legislation of 1538 (amended 1597) still in force in 1783? If yes, then the Stamp Act of 1783 effectively imposed a tax on baptisms as a result of there already being an existing legal requirement for registration.
Nigel
The legislation was still in force for the Church of England, and you are right in that in effect it was a tax on the baptism, if it was entered into the register, but the question was could a child be baptised without registration of that baptism, and under Canon Law it could. Of course non-conformist churches were not covered by the 1538 order.
As the poor were often unable or unwilling to pay the tax, under the 1783 Act the clergy had a direct inducement to retain their goodwill by keeping the registers defective. Some clergymen often preferred paying the tax out of their own pockets rather than incur the ill-will of their parishioners. Apparently in Scotland it was the cause in many parishes, and even whole counties, of the omission of registration altogether. Under the Act 23d Geo. III, after 1st October 1783, anyone refusing to pay the duty forfeited £5.
Stan
-
and some religious folk only allow adult baptisms!
-
I have an ancestor whom I know who his parents were but I cannot seem to find his baptism at all. He was born in about 1820.
I have an ancestor who was born in about 1788 in Chesterton, Oxfordshire according to the 1851 census but I cannot find a baptism there. There could be a few reasons. He was baptised elsewhere or not even baptised. Matthias Butler his name was. I found a Matthias Butler marriage to Hannah Bullock in 1784 in Oxford City so possible parents of him.v
-
and some religious folk only allow adult baptisms!
It is called Believers' Baptism. http://www.baptist.org.uk/baptist_life/believers_baptism/what_is_baptism.html
Stan
-
And I found the baptism of Matthias Butler in Chesterton, Oxfordshire. He was the son of James and Ann who were from Buckinghamshire.
-
Baptism is a sacrament and it is illegal to make a charge or accept payment for a sacrament; it comes under Simony.
Church law has forbidden the practice since the Council of Elvira in 305 (48th canon).
Again ordained at London in 1126 (national council) and at various other times including an Act of 1872 which incidentally included the registration of baptism in the exemption.
The 1783 Act stated
“…That, from and after the first Day of October, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, there shall be charged, levied, and paid unto
And for the Use of his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, the new Duty following ; (that is to say,)
Upon the Entry of any Burial, Marriage, Birth, or Christening, in the Register of any Parish, Precinct, or Place in Great Britain, Stamp-duty of three Pence.”
In other words all registrations of births, marriages, baptisms and burials were taxed not just Church of England registrations but those of Jews, Quakers etc.
Cheers
Guy
-
My 2Xgreat grandparents married on Christmas Day 1797.Also that for multiple baptisms only one fee was payable.Researching for a project on the incidence of bastardy in Dorset i have found several adult baptisms, it seems as though the vicar concerned was something of an evangelist who made as many conversions as possible, and I would think caused much upset in his parish. I was told by someone, I forget who, that marriages and baptisms on Christmas Day were tax free. Can anyone confirm this please?
-
Baptism is a sacrament and it is illegal to make a charge or accept payment for a sacrament; it comes under Simony.
Church law has forbidden the practice since the Council of Elvira in 305 (48th canon).
Again ordained at London in 1126 (national council) and at various other times including an Act of 1872 which incidentally included the registration of baptism in the exemption.
A practical treatise of the laws relating to the clergy;
Rights to ancient fees preserved.
Quote Stat. 52 Geo. 3.c.146. s.16 (An act for the better regulating and preserving parish and other registers of births, baptisms, marriages, and burials in England)provides, that nothing therein contained shall in any manner diminish or increase the fees theretofore payable or of right due to any minister for the performance of any duties relating to baptism, or to any minister or registrar for giving copies of baptismal registrations; but that all due, legal, and accustomed fees on such occasions, and all powers and remedies for recovery thereof, shall be and remain as though that act had not been made, and the enactments of stat. 6 & 7 Gul.4. c.86. do not affect the right of any officiating minister to receive the fees that were usually paid before 17th August 1836, for the performance or registration of any baptism.
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.
Stan
-
The 1783 Act stated
“…That, from and after the first Day of October, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three, there shall be charged, levied, and paid unto
And for the Use of his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, the new Duty following ; (that is to say,)
Upon the Entry of any Burial, Marriage, Birth, or Christening, in the Register of any Parish, Precinct, or Place in Great Britain, Stamp-duty of three Pence.”
In other words all registrations of births, marriages, baptisms and burials were taxed not just Church of England registrations but those of Jews, Quakers etc.
Cheers
Guy
Home and Foreign Review, Vol II, 1863, Stamp Act of 1783, 23 Geo. III. c.71
Quote At this period the registers of the Dissenters were mere private documents, inadmissible in any courts of justice. The Dissenters were encouraged to hope that if their registers were impressed with the Government stamp they would receive a public character, and be placed on an equality with the parish registers. Upon this understanding they consented to share the tax; and accordingly, in 1785, the Stamp Act was, at their own petition extended "to all Protestant Dissenters"(Stamp Duties Act 1785, 25 Geo. III c. 75). But by a gross breach of faith the privilege was withheld, although the price for it was received; and for nine years the Dissenters suffered without redress, if not without complaint.
Stan
-
Somethings never alter, thinking payment of fees by students, another breach of faith!
-
Yes some of the modern churches were illegally charging for baptism and registering baptisms.
The Act (which may be seen on my Acts pages )
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/acts/ufs.htm
Was to remove any doubt that such practices were illegal.
The doubt came from the differences between civil law and ancient ecclesiastical law, in this case ecclesiastical law prevailed.
Cheers
Guy
-
So apart from what the baptisms cost, and any rip off charges by the church(somethings don't change), and no age given at time of marriage, and with no viable death record to be found.
Baptims years are a guide only, without all that other evidence to back it up.
I think I get the picture. ;D
Steve :).
-
So apart from what the baptisms cost, and any rip off charges by the church(somethings don't change),
Steve :).
I don't know what you mean by"rip off charges" the Church of England has never charged fees for Baptisms, (unlike weddings and funerals) and does not do so now, unless a 'certificate of baptism' is required, and even then I would expect that most churches (like mine) would fore go any charge. The only time official fees have been charged was when there were duties on Register entries imposed by the civil authorities, and in the rare cases where there was a right to Ancient Fees, which were abolished by the Baptismal Fees Abolition Act passed in 1872.
Under Ecclesiastical law no fee can be charged for the administration of Sacraments, and Ministers cannot refuse Baptism.
Stan
-
Stan, Please see Guy's post No.24 above regarding illegal charges by some churches, also my reply concerning free weddings on Christmas Day.
-
Please see my reply A practical treatise of the laws relating to the clergy; Rights to ancient fees preserved.
Stan
-
Just to add that 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.
Stan
-
also my reply concerning free weddings on Christmas Day.
I would like to know the actual Church regulations that are supposed to allow this.
Stan
-
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.
Stan
-
also my reply concerning free weddings on Christmas Day.
I would like to know the actual Church regulations that are supposed to allow this.
Stan
The only church that allowed free Christmas Day weddings as far I have been able to discover was Manchester Cathedral during a short period of the 19th century.
That church apparently also carried out mass weddings, I doubt if either practice was lawful.
I have often heard claims (in the ten or so years I have researched this) that many churches allowed free Christmas weddings but the parish registers do not seem to support the theory.
Cheers
Guy
-
I've often seen "job lots" in colonial areas served by missionaries. In these cases, often there is a raft of marriages and baptisms in the community all at once when the missionary comes to town, or when a permanent clergyman is assigned to the area. Or, alternatively, a family might make a fairly lengthy trip to a larger community with a church, and have all the children "done" at the same time.
J.
-
Guy, I was told this by an archivist at Lincolnshire Archives when I first found the wedding some 14 years ago. Whether they have any supporting information I don't know. As a new researcher which I was then I did tend to take the word of archivists etc. as being gospel.
-
Digressing somewhat don't the Koreans go in for mass weddings, and in some case mass Baptisms, in some cases with a hose pipe?
-
Guy, I was told tyhis by an archivist at Lincolnshire Archives when i first found the wedding some 14 years ago. Whether they have any supporting information I don't know. As a new researcher which I was then I did tend to take the word of archivists etc. as being gospel.
I have found a few weddings on Christmas day......I just thought it a bit unusual. Also several baptisms also.
Not sure if they were 'free' though. ;D
Steve. :)
-
Stan, Please see Guy's post No.24 above regarding illegal charges by some churches
The legal position was that by the development of local custom, fees, often known as surplice fees, had become payable to parochial clergy for the performance of occasional offices. If this custom had existed from "time immemorial" then it was recognised by the common law and was legally-enforceable, and such customs were also recognised by Canon Law. However legally "time immemorial" means before 3rd September 1189, and the payment of fees could not be enforced if the custom in question did not exist, or could not have existed before this date. It was because Baptismal fees were always of doubtful legality, and difficulties could arise where the local custom was unclear, that the Baptismal Fees Abolition Act of 1872 was introduced. It was not until 1938 that legislation established parochial fees tables on a national basis for any parish when such powers was given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
See http://www.rootschat.com/links/0anh/
Stan
-
One reason for the popularity of Christmas Day for weddings was that as it was a holiday, there was no need to take time off work.
-
Winter weddings, after harvest, were chosen by many families, but avoiding December 28th (Childermass or Holy Innocents Day) which commemorated Herod's massacre of the children. The Catholic Church used to forbid marriage from the first Sunday in Advent until after the twelfth day.
Stan
-
Interesting re holiday on Christmas day, I remember my grandfather going to work on Christmas morning. This was in Scotland in the early seventies.
New Year of course was an extended holiday ;D
-
Interesting re holiday on Christmas day, I remember my grandfather going to work on Christmas morning. This was in Scotland in the early seventies.
New Year of course was an extended holiday ;D
In the rail industry Christmas Day and other bank holdays were always worked as a skeleton service was maintained. Christmas day was paid at Sunday rates, however during the 1980s or possibly earlier Christmas Day services were stopped, and since we were all off duty the Chairman of the BRB (Sir Peter Parker) took the opportunity to give us all a pep talk on National TV. In Scotland Christmas Day was a bank holiday, but Boxing Day wasn't , there it was replaced by New Years Day. Even now train services are different in Scotland on New Years Day to in the rest of the UK
-
In the 1950s mining industry in the North East, Boxing Day was a working day and New Years Day was a holiday.
Stan
-
Well, obviously there are and were people who work/ed Christmas Day - the clergyman, for one :) I perhaps should have said that for the majority it was a holiday.
-
My lot in Barmouth had 3 girls all baptised on same day in 1840 when one was age 8 one 5 and one new born. An elder girl had been baptised in a non-com. chapel so my guess is that maybe the parents had gone back to the parish church and got the children done then.
Just a note re working on Christmas day in Scotland:- In the 1950s if a ship was due to be in Liverpool on Christmas Day when there was no cargo work, then she was sent up to Glasgow on Christmas Eve so she could work cargo there on the 25th. Happy days!
Humphpaul