Rebaptism?

[Westfield]

It's been a while since I've been on this site, so apologises if this question has been answered.

Researching mine and OH's trees, I've now got back to late 1600's, early 1700's. I'm starting to find what looks like evidence of re-baptising of children. For example a Crispin Deacon baptised 10 May 1729, parents Francis and Elizabeth. Then a Crispianus Deacon baptised 04 Dec 1732, same place, same parents names.

There are other examples with 'latinized' names. It's a bit late for the Reformation, but I am wondering if this is something to do with that. Did people feel pressured into re-baptising there children with latinized names depending on the faith (or lack of it) of the Monarch? Has anyone else come across this?

[CaroleW]

Possibility that the first child died and they named their next son after his deceased brother.  Very common practice and a nightmare for FH researchers

[groom]

Possibility that the first child died and they named their next son after his deceased brother.  Very common practice and a nightmare for FH researchers

Yes, that happened with my great x4 grandfather. I couldn't understand why the ages given on the census and his grave didn't fit with the baptism, then I found another baptism and realised that his older brother must have died and he was given the same name.

[hallmark]

It's been a while since I've been on this site, so apologises if this question has been answered.

Researching mine and OH's trees, I've now got back to late 1600's, early 1700's. I'm starting to find what looks like evidence of re-baptising of children. For example a Crispin Deacon baptised 10 May 1729, parents Francis and Elizabeth. Then a Crispianus Deacon baptised 04 Dec 1732, same place, same parents names.

There are other examples with 'latinized' names. It's a bit late for the Reformation, but I am wondering if this is something to do with that. Did people feel pressured into re-baptising there children with latinized names depending on the faith (or lack of it) of the Monarch? Has anyone else come across this?

Probably RC.

[Westfield]

Naming a child after a deceased sibling is a possibility, I have come across that before. But what I can't understand is the latinisation of the name. Also, the dates don't suggest a younger sibling ie the date/age of death fits the older DOB. I have come across examples of it in my own family, the Cashmores, in a different part of the country, but about the same time.

It has thrown me in the past. But after seeing a programme about Charles II and his 'Catholicism' (is there such a word?) it got me thinking.

[Skoosh]

Charles II kept his Catholicism under wraps untill he was on his death bed!

Skoosh.

[Westfield]

Yes, that's what came out in the programme. I was thinking of the country at large. It must have been a confusing time. I was just wondering if anyone else had come across this in their searches?

The odd one or two I could understand but it is more than that and I think I may have missed something with some branches of the family because of the different names.

[Maiden Stone]

Some C. of E. parish registers from early 18thC  have some Latin in entries , such as "ux" for wife.
Names in R.C. registers were usually Latinised. However, bear in mind that Catholics were underdogs at this time and many kept a low profile to avoid notice by authority. Penal Laws against Catholics were in force. Priests often operated undercover to avoid arrest. A register would be incriminating evidence.
Where did you find the baptisms?

[Westfield]

That's very interesting. I didn't know that, thank you. It's a bit hard to give you details because when I found many of the entries I dismissed them as not the person I was looking for. It wasn't until this last entry with a more unusual name, that the idea came to mind. That, and the programme about Charles II.

I have some (very small) experience of the ignorance and bigotry those Catholics must have gone through. Dad was Catholic, mum is C of E. In England you'd shug and say 'so what?' There are STILL people around here who talk in hushed tones of 'mixed marriages'. I generally blow their minds by saying 'oh I wouldn't know about that, I'm a Baptist'. Nowt so queer as folk.

I think I'll go back and have another look at those entries with a more open mind - it might fill in some gaps. Still don't know the reason though.

BTW I got the info from the LDS site - my usual first port of call.