RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: coombs on Friday 08 March 19 16:53 GMT (UK)
-
I am sure we have had this before, due to lack of detail in parish records, you find a baptism of someone in a parish in say 1766 and other evidence strongly suggests they are the right ancestor (such as marriage witnesses, poor law records or wills etc), but then a year later in 1767, you find a burial of someone with the same name and it says "infant" but no more info apart from the name, date and infant. The pesky burial makes you doubt things, especially if you cannot find another baptism in the same parish or a nearby one of someone with the same name. I suppose lots of babies died un-baptised. Or the couple had another child and gave them the same name as their deceased older sibling, but did not baptise the namesake younger sibling. Hence why things can get confusing.
-
People were pretty superstitious about Baptisms,often the belief persisted that an unbaptised baby would not be admitted to heaven.
It would then stay in the state of Limbo for ever.
As infant deaths were so common it was usual to baptise a baby almost immediately.Babies too sick to attend church would be baptised at home.
Think of Jane Seymore ,her baby was baptised before she died (9 days after his birth .)
So I would say an unbaptised baby would be rare.
However dissenters like Baptists believe that you must be adult and fully aware of what is happening when you are baptised,hence adult baptisms for them.
Viktoria.
.
-
Vik, I've just said on another thread that I have a couple of instances of several siblings being baptised at once.
Martin
-
Yes Mart, I have heard of that too.
What sort of date and Cof E,or R.C or Non Con?
Some parents did seem to “ save them up” and get it over with in one go!
Viktoria.
-
My g'dad and 2 siblings were baptised on the same day in 1903 C of E.
-
People were pretty superstitious about Baptisms,often the belief persisted that an unbaptised baby would not be admitted to heaven.
It would then stay in the state of Limbo for ever.
As infant deaths were so common it was usual to baptise a baby almost immediately.Babies too sick to attend church would be baptised at home.
Think of Jane Seymore ,her baby was baptised before she died (9 days after his birth .)
So I would say an unbaptised baby would be rare.
However dissenters like Baptists believe that you must be adult and fully aware of what is happening when you are baptised,hence adult baptisms for them.
Viktoria.
.
Thanks for the explanation. I have often seen private baptisms listed in the register, the vicar obviously went to the parents house to baptise the baby if they were too sick to go to church. Not sure if all private baptisms were noted in the register.
In June 1765, a Mary Huntley was baptised in Horsham, Sussex, daughter of John and Lucy. A Mary Huntley, infant, was buried in April 1766 in Horsham. So it would appear it is likely the one born in 1765. My Mary Huntley wed her first hubby Thomas Davey in 1782 and she remarried William Dinnage in 1792. Mary died in 1837, age given as 72. Witnesses to her first and 2nd marriage seem to connect to John and Lucy but a Richard Huntley wed Mary Davey in 1764 in Horsham. Mary Huntley, later Davey then Dinnage had a son Richard. An example of how you can be thrown off track.
Seems the Huntley's were connected but how I am not sure.
-
I believe in extreme cases the midwife or whoever was assisting could baptise a baby?
-
I believe in extreme cases the midwife or whoever was assisting could baptise a baby?
Any confirmed Christian can baptise. In the Church of England, as part of confirmation classes, candidates are taught how it is done. My grandmother baptised my youngest aunt (her last child).
Regards
Chas
-
" However dissenters like Baptists believe that you must be adult and fully aware of what is happening when you are baptised,hence adult baptisms for them.
Viktoria. "
Sorry, but this reminded me of someone who as an adult, was baptised in the sea and lost his false teeth !! This is true, it was on the South coast.
-
My ancestor Samuel Bush was born c1570. He was the parish clerk of Ringland in Norfolk from 1606 to his 1626 death. He had children and grandchildren called Bridget and Hester. A Samuel Bush was baptised in 1571 in Hardingham, Norfolk, and he had siblings Bridget and Hester. A very likely candidate for my ancestor. Samuel Bush wed a Rose Reynolds in 1600 in Deopham near Hardingham. They had a daughter Lidia Bush baptised in Hardingham in 1602. It seems my Samuel was married to Mary by 1610. A Rose Bush was buried in Hardingham in 1618, widow. However, a Walter Bush in a nearby parish had a wife called Rose and Walter died in 1604. The 1618 burial could be the widow of Walter and not Samuel. I cannot find a burial for Samuel 1602-1618. Shows how when you think you are onto something, then you get thrown off the scent.
-
I would say an unbaptised baby would be rare.
I found out recently that my gt-grandmother had a second set of twins in the 1840s, one of whom died very soon. His father registered the birth the next day with a name (Robert), but registered the death three days later anonymously - I assumed because he had not been baptised.
-
Coombs,
I feel your frustration. I too have had that problem of finding burials and baptisms that throw doubt into the mix.
It took me ages to sort through all of the Jonathan Dowdeswell's in and around London in the 1700's. When you have a will proved in 1756, and a burial in the same year, it must be the right one. Or so I thought; turns out it was his infant grandson born 1755. The testator was buried in 1741. Must have been a to do over the will; he left nothing to his wife who he mentioned was no longer living with him.
-
Coombs,
I feel your frustration. I too have had that problem of finding burials and baptisms that throw doubt into the mix.
It took me ages to sort through all of the Jonathan Dowdeswell's in and around London in the 1700's. When you have a will proved in 1756, and a burial in the same year, it must be the right one. Or so I thought; turns out it was his infant grandson born 1755. The testator was buried in 1741. Must have been a to do over the will; he left nothing to his wife who he mentioned was no longer living with him.
Yes, the pesky burials, marriages and baptisms that seem to make you doubtful as to whether the man your are tracing is your ancestor. You pray that it is a coincidence. They do happen as we have all experienced. Some not to our advantage but some to our advantage. You try and find anything to see if you can eliminate the burial or marriage etc.