Why was she baptised so late?

[lyla]

Hi

I have the following baptisms all at the same church and I'm almost 100% sure they are all the same family. What I don't understand is why wasnt Mary baptised in turn? She would have been aged 3 when her younger sister was baptised and it seems strange that they didnt do her at the same time if not before. Has anyone else come across this or can suggest some reasons why she was baptised so late? I have a missing baptism in another family line and this has made me wonder if the same reason applies.

Thanks
Lyla

18/7/1802 John of John and Frances Ann Griffiths of Queen Square born 21/6/1802
1/1/1804 John of John George and Frances Ann Griffiths of Queen Square born 10/2/1803
17/9/1805 James Alfred of John George and Fanny Griffiths of Queen Square born 10/6/1805
18/5/1811 Eliza of John and Frances Griffiths, Old Street Road born 14/4/1811
6/6/1814 Mary to John and Frances Griffiths of Kingsland Road born 2/11/1807 Upholder
 

[GeoffE]

It seems the first two kids were both about a year when they were christened, so baptism was never high on the list of priorities with this family, so perhaps they just forgot ... then realised eventually.

My grandad and his siblings were subjected to similar randomness - a couple of them about 18 months old, one brother was almost six when he was christened .   I think his early days may have coincided with a change of town and the matter of christeneng was simply forgotten.

This contrasts strongly with my Catholic side who seemed to have the kids christened on day one.

[meles]

Some of mine were baptised 5 years after birth. Caused me considerable confusion! 

And at least two were baptised twice - presumably to make sure 

meles

[claireandsi]

One of my ancestors was baptised in 1854, having been born in 1825!!!!   

I've always thought this was a bit odd (very odd), but all her siblings were baptised at the same time.  I can only think that it wasn't really important to them.  Perhaps the village clergyman insisted when he heard about the "heathen family" in the midst of the community - I'll probably never know.

[lyla]

Thanks for your replies - its obviously not unusual then. What seems so strange to me is that the next child Eliza was baptised on time. Surely they would have realised at the time that the older daughter Mary had still not been baptised. And what made them decide to baptise her eventually? I have wondered if perhaps Mary was a sickly child and that maybe they thought it wasnt worth the expense if she was likely to die. Fortunately Mary lived to adulthood before she disappeared off the face of the earth with her husband.

[GeoffE]

Oh, I found one who was bap at age 24 ... just a few weeks before her marriage ... and her sister was done at the same time aged 21.

As regards "a sickly child, not expected to live", surely that would be a reason to have her done ASAP.

[mentmore]

I have come across several baptisms where the 'child' were adults, the first two children of this family were bap 11 days after birth, two don't appear to have been baptised, others were born 1828 bap 1853, born 1831 bap 1871 on his death bed , and born 1836 bap 1853 .

[seahall]

Hi All

There is an explanation here for late and more than one.

http://www.rootschat.com/links/03q1/

Sandy

Edit- Making link shorter.

[lyla]

Thanks everyone for all your replies and the book link

Lyla