RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Surrey => Topic started by: klmadz2301 on Saturday 24 March 18 13:57 GMT (UK)
-
Hi everyone
This is just more of a why question, but I have a sibling to my direct ancestor that was born in 1860 in Surrey, but wasn't baptised until 1886. The siblings, including my direct ancestor, were baptised with a month or so of their birth but this one was born May 1860 and baptised in June 1886. She married almost a year later in 1887. I knew this sibling existed but because I couldn't find her until I found the 1886 baptism. Thankfully her date of birth was also written with the baptism date on the record. I just wondered why there would have been such a huge gap between her birth and baptism, yet all her other siblings were born and baptised within a month or so?
-
Perhaps it was just forgotten. And then later she wanted to be confirmed and realised she had never been christened.
Or maybe her parents attended a non conformist Church for a while where the practice was not to baptise babies, but to baptise people when old enough to make their own decision about faith ("believers baptism") , and so didn't get this chid done as a baby.
All sorts of possible reasons. That's the thing with Family History - we can often establish what happened, but rarely why!
-
I don't know how true this is but I was told that some Priests or Vicars insisted the bride or groom was baptised before marriage, missed out on my husbands grandfather though, no baptism and no registered birth
I have also found just one child not baptised and the others were, like Lizdb says, forgotten
Louisa Maud
-
Thank you both for your reply.
This sibling that i mention, Alice, is the oldest in the family so I figured they would want her get her baptised, but the thought regarding marriage also crossed my mind. Funny how for most families baptism was a big thing, but now days it's not. I know that Alice had twin brothers and their baptisms are listed as non-conformist but that was in 1872, so after Alice was born.
-
The marriage may have had a bearing on it as Louisa Maud says.
What denomination of church did marriage and baptism take place in?
-
Hi Maiden
This is the information i have on both the baptism and marriage:
BAPTISM: 3 June 1886 – Battersea St Mary, Wandsworth, England
Baptisms solemnized in the Parish of St Mary Battersea in the County of Surrey in the Year One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty Six.
MARRIAGE DATE: 27 March 1887 – Christ Church, Battersea, Wandsworth, England
Marriage solemnized at Christ Church in the Parish of Battersea in the County of Surrey
Im putting everything into word documents as i go along for each family member so I dont have to go looking online for my tree constantly :)
-
My Aunt was baptised late & it was just before she married.
Odd really because she was my Mums eldest sister both her & her younger sister
were baptised when they were babies.I have always thought of this as strange.
-
The Book of Common Prayer, has this comment: "It is convenient that the new-married persons should receive the holy Communion at the time of their Marriage, or at the first opportunity after their Marriage." You had to be baptised to receive Communion, so this is why, sometimes, people got baptised before their wedding.
Meghan Markle was baptised so she can join Prince Harry at Holy Communion if she desires.
Stan
-
The Book of Common Prayer, has this comment: "It is convenient that the new-married persons should receive the holy Communion at the time of their Marriage, or at the first opportunity after their Marriage." You had to be baptised to receive Communion, so this is why, sometimes, people got baptised before their wedding.
Meghan Markle was baptised so she can join Prince Harry at Holy Communion if she desires.
Stan
As far as I'm aware, although it might have changed. one had to be a confirmed member of the C of E before being able to receive Communion. You had to be baptised before you were confirmed.
-
This sibling that i mention, Alice, is the oldest in the family
Might she have been born before her parents' marriage?
-
As far as I'm aware, although it might have changed. one had to be a confirmed member of the C of E before being able to receive Communion. You had to be baptised before you were confirmed.
Yes, you had to be confirmed, the Book of Common Prayer says that after adult baptism "It is expedient that every person, thus baptized, should be confirmed by the Bishop so soon after his Baptism as conveniently may be; that so he may be admitted to the holy Communion."
Stan
-
This sibling that i mention, Alice, is the oldest in the family
Might she have been born before her parents' marriage?
Just following up on this thought - I see she is Alice Fisher.
Parents Edward James Fisher and Martha Clark married at St Anne, Wandsworth on 18 July 1859.
Birth reg for Alice Fisher mmn Clark is Jun qtr 1860 Wandsworth, and she is 11 months old in the 1861 census (7 Apr 1861). This is more or less consistent with the birthdate of 9 May 1860 recorded in the 1886 baptism register.
So not, it seems, born before the marriage (or even on the way at the time).
-
As far as I'm aware, although it might have changed. one had to be a confirmed member of the C of E before being able to receive Communion. You had to be baptised before you were confirmed.
Today the baptism of adults is normally followed immediately by confirmation and first communion.
Stan
-
Thank you for all your help and information. I knew about the Church of England and having to be baptised because my parents were married in a C of E church and at least one of them had to be baptised to marry in the church and this was in 1959 in Australia. Same thing with my husbands parents
-
Rebecca Hazard Waugh, Christened/Married 13 March 1813, Parish Church, Alston, Cumberland. At birth Rebecca's parents were described as "Lapsed Quakers."