RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: PaulStaffs on Tuesday 07 May 19 10:39 BST (UK)
-
I have a family with half a dozen children born in the 1820s. Some of the middle children were baptised at an Independent chapel while the others were 'done' at the usual Anglican parish church. I could understand if they had switched from one denomination to another but it seems odd that they are mixed up in this way (unless they tried the non-conformist route then changed their minds). The parents themselves were both baptised at the parish church.
Does anyone else have this situation or thoughts as to why it might happen?
-
I really don't know the answer.
But sometimes it is not about the Message, but rather about the Messenger. Some preachers are just more charismatic than others. At a time before radio and TV and literacy was low, maybe a better class of live entertainment was called for.
Regards
Chas
-
Are you referring to baptisms in England or elsewhere?
In the 1820s (and from around 1810 to around mid 1840s in some instances) in New South Wales, (at that time, a British penal colony), the requirement was for the clergy of all denominations to provide the NSW Chaplains with details of each baptism, burial, wedding, performed during the quarter. These transmitted records were used to provide statistical information to the English Penal Administration in London. The NSW Chaplains were C of E reverends, and so there are baptisms for Wesleyan, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, and the other denominations recorded in the C of E parish registers for those selected C of E Reverends who were appointed as NSW Chaplains.
ADD, so sometimes the extant record is the C of E one, other times it is the one from the original clergyman, and other times it is a transmitted record somewhere in between those two options. Sometimes up to FIVE different registers hold the transmitted information sent to the NSW Chaplains.
JM
-
Was it boys in one and girls in another? I know of families where the couple cam from different religious backgrounds and they came to such a compromise.
-
I have mentioned before one of my wife's ancestors who was born in rural Northumberland in November 1835, baptised by a travelling Methodist minister in January, and again just before her first birthday in the local parish church soon after it opened. I presume there was a strong feeling that newborns should be baptised early in case of misfortune, especially if they seemed sickly.
One difficulty for family historians is that the deeds of travelling ministers were recorded 'at home base' (as it were) and may have been transcribed as if they had taken place in the big city - in this case Newcastle, which was a day's journey away and most unlikely for this farming family in mid-winter.
-
Thanks to all for the input. In reply to the questions, this was in Staffordshire, England and unfortunately it doesn't fall into a male/female pattern! When the children grew up, got married and had their own children all ceremonies took place at the parish church. The minister must have been quite charismatic (or stubborn!) as he remained in post for over 40 years!
Maybe they parents just 'dabbled' with the Independents, although two of the girls went on to work for the minister's son - the famous Robert Spear Hudson of Hudson's Soap fame - when they grew up.
-
Is there any pattern timewise?
Have you researched the history of the chapel and ministers and the history of that denomination in the area?
Did they live in a town or countryside?
You said that their parents were both baptised in C. of E. If they were born in late 18thC they may have been included in local Anglican parish baptism register whatever their denomination. There was a tax on births to pay for debts of American War of Independence. Anglican clergy collected the tax so had to keep records of all children born in their parish. Names of some of my Catholic ancestors born 1780s-early 1800s were in Anglican baptism register. It's similar to the situation described by majm in reply #2.
-
Have you checked to see if one church was closed and "under repair" for example...
-
The minister must have been quite charismatic (or stubborn!) as he remained in post for over 40 years!
I think ministers then quite often did. I have transcribed parish records from rural Lancashire and witnessed the vicar baptising for over 50 years, with his script slowly deteriorating until he gave up and died at 83. Some of them were essentially incumbents for life, and sometimes handed on to a close relative. May have been in the gift of the local landowner.
-
The minister must have been quite charismatic (or stubborn!) as he remained in post for over 40 years!
I think ministers then quite often did. I have transcribed parish records from rural Lancashire and witnessed the vicar baptising for over 50 years, with his script slowly deteriorating until he gave up and died at 83. Some of them were essentially incumbents for life, and sometimes handed on to a close relative. May have been in the gift of the local landowner.
I was reading something about that relatively recently. Something about having the right to appoint the local incumbent. Some of my daughter's relatives benefitted from it. I have it somewhere in my pile of stuff will need to look it out, it explained it properly the thing I read.
-
I have several instances of this diversity in various of my family lines, and I don't find it particularly strange or requiring an explanation, unless the family mixes RC with Anglican/Non-Conformist baptisms. I think that would need more digging to find the reasons.
Melbell
-
My parents were married at our local parish church but when I was born the vicar said they liked their parents to be regular attenders so mam said, no problem we will go elsewhere.
So I was done at the Primitive Methodist Chapel and when I looked at the register, most of my classmates were there, all because of an awkward vicar!
-
Have you checked to see if one church was closed and "under repair" for example...
Good thought but no - it was rebuilt in the late 1700s and again in the 1870s but as far as I know was doing 'business as usual' in the 1830s!
-
Baptism is the rite of being accepted into the Christian church - not any particular denomination of it. With the exception of the Quakers who don't baptise, and the Baptists who practice adult baptism, it wouldn't matter where the baptism took place ( and ignoring Catholics who might reject non-RC baptisms in theory). It could just be that the family weren't particularly religious themselves, so didn't care where the baptism took place.
-
Not precisely the same situation but another reversal of denomination....
A couple of my Norfolk great-grandparents were baptised into the Methodist church as infantsin the 1860s. Later (she at age 14, he a few years after at 21) got themselves formally received into the local C of E Church, where they were later married. But when they had children together, they gave both (a girl and a boy) a Methodist baptism and themselves continued to worship as Methodists for the rest of their lives.
What their particular reasons for this were I know not. As a general observation though, the impression I received from older members of my family was that some C. of E. adherents would get uncomfortable if the local incumbent got too "high church" in matters of ritual and might decamp to the local Methodist assembly rather than being dragged closer to Rome.
John.
-
One of the parents may have had Independent leanings and the other didn't.
Another suggestion - schools or Sunday Schools. Some modern parents join a church if the church school has a good reputation.
-
Not precisely the same situation but another reversal of denomination....
A couple of my Norfolk great-grandparents were baptised into the Methodist church as infantsin the 1860s. Later (she at age 14, he a few years after at 21) got themselves formally received into the local C of E Church, where they were later married. But when they had children together, they gave both (a girl and a boy) a Methodist baptism and themselves continued to worship as Methodists for the rest of their lives.
What their particular reasons for this were I know not. As a general observation though, the impression I received from older members of my family was that some C. of E. adherents would get uncomfortable if the local incumbent got too "high church" in matters of ritual and might decamp to the local Methodist assembly rather than being dragged closer to Rome.
John.
Some of those 'high church' clergy in Victorian England themselves decamped to the Catholic Church. John Henry Newman for instance, who became Cardinal Newman.
Some Non-conformists had fallings-out too.
-
Also there was a strong feeling that C of E Baptisms were “ stronger”,also marriages.
The Methodist and Baptist movements were relatively new and the C of E underwent radical changes, so an unsettled time.
But I think the theory that the parents had no strong leanings is likely.
The babies were “ done” where convenient and the minister who expected the family to attend Church was not being awkward,he was doing his job and to have your child taken into the Family of the Church when you are not members does seem more like superstition than religion.
The stupid belief that unbaptised babies were not allowed into heaven was very strong and given the infant mortality rate of those times parents played safe.
There was obviously a lot of superstition and belief all mixed up ,still is!
There are Great big Christening do’s,hundreds in our church.
Promises made but never kept.Sniggering at the words etc so why bother?
Church schools are often very good, that is why,children must have been baptised to go to such schools nowadays.
But at least they had their babies baptised so they had done their best even if not regular attenders .
How parents coped with the many babies lost I can’t imagine.
My Grandmother lost three ,all just weeks and months old.
Viktoria.
-
Also there was a strong feeling that C of E Baptisms were “ stronger”,also marriages.
The Methodist and Baptist movements were relatively new and the C of E underwent radical changes, so an unsettled time.
But I think the theory that the parents had no strong leanings is likely.
The babies were “ done” where convenient and the minister who expected the family to attend Church was not being awkward,he was doing his job and to have your child taken into the Family of the Church when you are not members does seem more like superstition than religion.
The stupid belief that unbaptised babies were not allowed into heaven was very strong and given the infant mortality rate of those times parents played safe.
There was obviously a lot of superstition and belief all mixed up ,still is!
There are Great big Christening do’s,hundreds in our church.
Promises made but never kept.Sniggering at the words etc so why bother?
Church schools are often very good, that is why,children must have been baptised to go to such schools nowadays.
But at least they had their babies baptised so they had done their best even if not regular attenders .
How parents coped with the many babies lost I can’t imagine.
My Grandmother lost three ,all just weeks and months old.
Viktoria.
One of my 4x grt uncles was baptised the day he was born, the minister commented on it. The view persisted well into the last centuary. Not long after my parents married they had a frantic knock on their door from a neghbour who had sen my Dad in his ambulance uniform. Their baby, who had been born just that Friday night had died in her sleep :(. It had supposed to be herChristening. My mum calle the priest at the neighbuor's church as they wee very religious and my mum felt they needed comfort. The Priest refused to come out bacause the baby hadn't been baptised and said they should have done it quicker. I wasn't even born yet but have been angry ever since I was told that the parents were denied comfort.
My children were both baptised. Not to get into good school but because I actually believed. Some laughed at the second but that was because my daughter looked like she was blowing raspberries a the priest. I don't go to church regularly though because; 1. I work shifts which includes weekends 2. As I am no longer with my husband it has been made clear I am not welcome unless I take him back. I still teach my girls about the bible though.
-
I researched this question once. The setting was relatively rural Pennsylvania in the 1810's and 1820's. The family was said to be one of the "pillars" of the early Methodist community in the area, but 4 of the children were baptized as Lutheran. There was no Methodist church building in the area until 1833.
I found this information. If it is not correct, please let me know. The first quote would seem to apply to England as well:
The founder of Methodism, John Wesley's, "plan was to revive the Church of England from within, not to form a new church. All his followers were expected to continue to attend their Anglican parish church for public worship and communion, and for baptism, marriage, and burial."
Encyclopedia Americana, "Methodism", (Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier, 1999).
...
In America, a difference of opinion arose among early Methodists in connection with administering the sacraments for themselves. Northern Methodists believed that they did not have that authority, while Southern Methodists did.
Frank Baker, From Wesley to Asbury: Studies in Early American Methodism (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1976), 101-103.
-
There is s fine line between belief in a religion and superstition.
Many superstitious beliefs surround childbirth and Baptism.
One such is that women must be “Churched” as soon as possible.
My M in L would not let me into her house,I am laughing now as I remember,
We called with the baby on our way back from buying clothes for a baby boy.
You just bought a basic layette in those far off days 1957.
I had walked a bit too far ,but we would not have passed her door anyway.
She brought me a chair outside to sit on, then when a shower started an umbrella!I then realised why I was not allowed in the house.
She thought she was being a good Christian.
She was very good in many ways ,but that was ridiculous.
I remember a young woman neighbour of many years ago.
She was expecting a baby but also in the last stages of liver cancer.
We young Mums were so,upset as she also had three other young children.
Treatment well over 50 years ago was nothing like today and had she accepted what there was the baby would have been endangered.
A dead unbaptised baby,born or still unborn would go into Limbo.
We could not understand why it could not be baptised ,was there no format for such eventualities.?
O.K the actual,putting of water on the baby’s head could not be done before birth,but anyone who thinks they believe in God would surely feel “he “would not turn an innocent baby away.
It incensed us all ,church goers and those who did not ,alike.
The young woman died just after the baby was born ,early,alive.
The Priest came with the special items for such an eventuality.
I can remember it now,neighbours almost hissed as he entered the house ,
it all seemed so cruel and far from the loving aspect of Christianity.
We had known the Mum from schooldays,she had changed her religion to marry the man she loved, and it let her down in the belief that accepting treatment might kill her unborn baby who then would be in Limbo,for ever.
And she would be to blame.
I truly think,she was too ill for the treatment to have any effect,but what a moral dilemma.
I am sure things have moved on and away from such superstitions in the guise of religion.
Viktoria.
Remember this was over 50 years ago .
-
Viktoria, I remember joking about it a few weeks ago on another thread, but you always write such wisdom. Somebody really should compile it all into a book. You always have such a balanced way of looking at things.
My niece is taught at school to present an argument on a particular subject, and then the following week she has to prepare an argument opposing her original presentation. She learns to see both sides of things, as you have so clearly done. You should have been a diplomat. Perhaps you were?
Martin
-
The founder of Methodism, John Wesley's, "plan was to revive the Church of England from within, not to form a new church. All his followers were expected to continue to attend their Anglican parish church for public worship and communion, and for baptism, marriage, and burial."
Encyclopedia Americana, "Methodism", (Danbury, Connecticut: Grolier, 1999).
John Wesley remained a member of the Church of England until his death.
The break with the Anglican Church came after the deaths of Charles and John Wesley. 'Plan of Pacification ' 1795.
https://www.methodist.org.uk/about-us/the-methodist-church/history
20 years later, Wesleyan Methodists in Ireland separated from Church of Ireland. Primitive Methodists remained with C. of I. for several more decades. See Irish Toolkit website for a brief history of Methodism in Ireland.
-
@maidenstone
Thank you.
-
I am sure things have moved on and away from such superstitions in the guise of religion.
Remember this was over 50 years ago .
Things have moved on, but in parts of the world bigotry seems to be at least as entrenched as it was in 1957. Although I went to a school with a chapel and was confirmed in the C of E, my parents were not especially religious and I have gradually become an atheist. Religion has been both a blessing and a curse in equal measure - and still is. The best thing to have come out of it is centuries of exquisite music.
-
That is interesting Maiden Stone,we tend to think Methodism was a new religion.
The Oxford Movement seemed to many to be a retrograde step,bringing back many Catholic practises in to the Anglican Church which went at the Reformation.
John Newman was beatified by the Catholic Church eventually.
Isn’t it sad that religion should cause such bitterness and strife.
Well Mart,I have some strong views but I have to allow that others have too
Some things I can’t budge from though.
I have put my foot in it quite a few times though!
Children’s rights and how things can deny them those rights.
Only one childhood and it ought to be happy and secure.
I could never budge from that.
I think falling standards are causing a lot of unhappiness in all sorts of ways.
So what do we do? Fight or go with the flow.?
Well if we don’t fight falling standards nothing will improve and it is not an exaggeration to say we are seeing the start of the end of both our civilisation and the end of our planet.
I do try to see other’s points of view,but I can’t alter my standards to accommodate views I know will not be right, fair or honest.
Put that down to my Methodist upbringing, or to be more exact those people who were Methodists who brought me up.
Cheerio.
Wonder if the new baby will sleep much ?
Harry will have an excuse to nurse him
Viktoria.