RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Lancashire => Topic started by: janeeliza999 on Thursday 07 March 19 22:27 GMT (UK)
-
Can anyone think of a reason why there would be a gap of almost 7 months between a birth and a baptism? My 3x great grandfather was born 16th October 1846 ( I have the birth cert) and baptised 4th April 1847? Birth reg Prescot sub district Huyton. Baptism St Mary the Virgin, Prescot.
Thanks
Jane
-
I don’t find it notably long. Perhaps he was a robust baby whose family was not in fear of his dying, so there wasn’t any particular urgency. Perhaps they just weren’t the most enthusiastic or regular churchgoers.
I recently read an academic study correlating increasing age at baptism in the 19th century with falling rates of infant mortality. Quite interesting.
-
Thanks for your reply.
I never thought that maybe they didnt go to church....
lol
-
Maybe they didn’t go to church much in the winter, and started again when the weather was milder in the spring! I suppose you’ll never know. But I think it is a mistake to assume, as many do, that religious observance was a priority for all Victorian families.
-
Where did they live in relation to the church?
-
As far as I know they lived in Huyton and Prescot was neighbouring.
-
Is there not a more specific address on the birth certificate? It is not my area so I don’t know how far that would have been, but if it was a long distance then it is entirely possible they didn’t bother in the rain/snow/mud of the winter.
-
It just says Huyton on the cert. In 1841 his mother, Ann, was with her family at Village, Wheat Sheaf, Huyton,Prescot Lancs. Sounds like a pub. In 1851 just Village. In 1849 his mother had gone. She married in 1849. He was on the 1851 census as 4yrs old. Grandson. Pretty sure he was illegitimate
-
It must have been a noisy day.
There were 18 baptisms on 4th April 1847. which was Easter Sunday. (and 14 on Christmas Day)
Maybe the mother could only get the statuary Holy days off work
AS it only names a mother he would have been 'baseborn'
-
Easter Sunday - of course! Traditionally a very popular time for baptisms.
-
Ah. Ive heard of something similar,where the vicar rounds up the parents of unbaptised children and on a particular day,all the children in a family were baptised !!
-
Perhaps they only went to church at Easter.
As he was illegitimate, maybe his mum delayed in hope that his dad might do the decent thing.
-
With no father to be seen, his mother was maybe depressed after the birth, so when Easter came around, was persuaded to celebrate his birth !
-
I don’t find it notably long. Perhaps he was a robust baby whose family was not in fear of his dying, so there wasn’t any particular urgency. Perhaps they just weren’t the most enthusiastic or regular churchgoers.
I recently read an academic study correlating increasing age at baptism in the 19th century with falling rates of infant mortality. Quite interesting.
I've looked at age of baptism in selected years in my home parish. Some curates noted d.o.b.
1738 Babies were usually baptised during 1st week post birth. Some were a month old.
1797 A month was most popular age for baptism. Some were 2 months; 5 were 3 months, including twins; 1 was 6 months.
1847 Typical age at baptism seems to have been 2 months. Some babies were baptised younger than 2 months. Of 38 baptisms Jan-Jun , 5 babies were between 3 and 6 months and 4 were over 6 m. Some took longer to reach the font: 2 yrs, 6 yrs, two were 7 yrs and one was 13 yrs.
-
How about procrastination?
-
I believe it was the general norm to have a child baptised but there was no legal requirement to do so.
One of my lines of interest had 6 of their children baptised on the same day, fortunately whoever filled in the parish register also entered the actual birth dates of each child, the eldest being 9 years old.
-
I think you may find that it was not usual for clergy to baptise newborns during Lent and perhaps from Advent or Epiphany right through to Easter Day. I think if the baby was sickly, a private baptism was arranged.
JM
-
A single mother may not have been able to get to the church until Easter Sunday, for work reasons. Then as Majm has suggested, pre Easter may have been a no baptism time.
There is of course the possibility that there was a change of clergy. Perhaps the incumbent did not like to baptize children of single women, and then there was a new incumbent who was more amenable.
-
I have, on OH's side,
first daughter, baptised Mar 1841 at Scots Presbyterian in Sydney, and May 1843, Catholic at West Maitland.
second daughter, born Dec 1842, baptised May 1843, Catholic, West Maitland
third daughter, born Aug 1846, baptised Oct 1847, Catholic, West Maitland
fourth daughter born Oct 1848, baptised Nov 1848, West Maitland
AC
-
Perhaps they only went to church at Easter.
As he was illegitimate, maybe his mum delayed in hope that his dad might do the decent thing.
This was the case of my grandfather who was born on 16th June 1902. he was eventually baptised at St. Chads Cathedral in Birmingham on 12th November 1913. Now that's what I call a wait! ;D
His parents eventually married on 1st June 1914.
-
In this particular church baptisms were done during Lent. LAN-ops shows several baptisms during March 1847.
I like the suggestion that somebody did a round up. The 4th April baptisms seem to have been done by someone who was not the normal official and the same I think applied to the Christmas Day ones.
I have a family too where 7 children were baptised on the same day but again fortunately the vicar wrote their dates of birth in the register.
-
My 2x great grandfather was born on 15 April 1796 and baptised on 27 March 1815 when he was 18! He lived in the same road as the church in Hull.
He was a brickwall as I had despaired of ever finding his parentage without a baptismal record but there it was with his birth date noted so don't ever give up.
His two siblings were baptised in the years in which they were born so don't know what happened to him.
Pheno
-
I've never given a thought to a gap of a few months between birth and baptism. I've got more than one example of several children from a family all being baptised at once during their childhood. All I can guess is that somebody encouraged the parents to suddenly get it done.
Martin
-
Did it cost to have a child baptised?
-
Helping someone else, I found the following:
Born 1829 - Leicestershire Married 1849 - Kensington Baptised: 1852 - South Africa
-
I have one where my 3x g-grandfather was born in 1819 in Aberdeenshire and was baptized on the same day as his son in 1843 in Toronto Canada. I also have found another ancestor born in 1810 and baptized in 1812. Needless to say, for me, I don't find it uncommon to find someone baptized months or years after birth. I just wish they always included the date of birth on the baptism registration.
-
I think you may find that it was not usual for clergy to baptise newborns during Lent and perhaps from Advent or Epiphany right through to Easter Day. I think if the baby was sickly, a private baptism was arranged.
I've never heard of that regarding baptisms. Lent lasts 6 weeks. Some babies didn't live that long; even a baby born healthy might fall victim to fatal illness. Unbaptised babies weren't buried in churchyards in 1840s England and few places had cemeteries.
Marriages were discouraged during certain times of the church year. Lent and Advent were periods of penance, fasting and reflection in preparation for the feasts of Easter. Holding a wedding celebration would have been considered incompatible with the mood of those seasons.
Baptisms would have been arranged for whatever date suited both family and clergyman. There might have been more baptisms in a parish in some months for a variety of factors. Births in rural parishes may have had seasonal fluctuations e.g. ag. labs leaving for temporary work elsewhere, or staying home and working 18-hour days in summer; in contrast there were long nights and less work in winter.