Completed Why order a baptism record 69 years after??

[Treelover]

Hi

I'd like to pick a few brains please if I may.  The family have recently found a copy of a baptism certificate.  The baptism of Thomas Smith on 7th March 1841 in Stanton St Quintin, Wiltshire

This copy is dated 30th October 1910.  But we cannot think of why it would be required 69 years after the event??

On the 1901 census he is living in Taverham, Norfolk.  I'm just wondering if maybe he died in 1910 and there was some reason (maybe an insurance policy) that the family needed this certificate.  But why not order his birth certificate? 

Would his birth definately have been registered in 1841?  Or is it possible this was the only record they could order?

There are three Thomas Smith's dying 1910 that might just fit his death, but none of them have the right birth year (although I have had that happen before).

Any ideas please?

Thanks
Joan

[avm228]

Hmmm...

I was going to suggest that perhaps proof of his age was needed, and that was the best they (whoever it was who needed it - him or someone else) could do.

But there is a candidate birth registration in the correct registration district:

Birth Mar 1841 

SMITH Thomas   
Chippenham  8 285


Perhaps the original birth certificate had been lost, and they didn't know how to get another? Or perhaps the Thomas Smith whose birth was registered is not the same chap!

Anna

[toni*]

maybe it was so he could be buried with the rites of the chruch whereas unbaptised persons could not ??
a finicktey vicar needing proof ?


or

maybe they were researching their family tree 

[behindthefrogs]

The old age pension at that time was paid at the age of 70.  The obtaining of the certificate seems to correspond almost exactly with him approaching that age.

David

[toni*]

good thinking David

[Treelover]

Hi David and Toni,

Well the pension idea does sound good, but it still makes me wonder why a baptism record??  If they wanted to make sure he was coming up to 70 that wouldn't really confirm it.  For all they know he could have been baptised when he was 5, although in that case he would then have claimed his pension 5 years earlier  

Joan

[behindthefrogs]

Many entries in the baptism register specifically state the age of a person who was not a child.  He was probably offered the choice of baptism certificate or birth certificate and thought baptism would be easier particularly if he still attended that church.

David

[Treelover]

Hi again David,

I can see where you are coming from.  There was no age on the baptism record.  But he wasn't in the same parish.  Born Wiltshire ended up in Norfolk 

Joan

[peggypatch]

It didn't become compulsory to register births until 1875, so perhaps he didn't have a birth certificate. I would guess it was something to do with a pension or his burial, some finicky vicars still want to see baptism records before they will marry people (less so for burials - not very sensitive after all). Baptisms for children that are not infants do tend to record the fact that they are older.