Why the long wait between birth and baptism?

[a chesters]

I have, on OH's side,
first daughter, baptised Mar 1841 at Scots Presbyterian in Sydney, and May 1843, Catholic at West Maitland.
second daughter, born Dec 1842, baptised May 1843, Catholic, West Maitland
third daughter, born Aug 1846, baptised Oct 1847, Catholic, West Maitland
fourth daughter born Oct 1848, baptised Nov 1848, West Maitland

AC

[Greenvale]

Perhaps they only went to church at Easter.
As he was illegitimate, maybe his mum delayed in hope that his dad might do the decent thing.

This was the case of my grandfather who was born on 16th June 1902. he was eventually baptised at St. Chads Cathedral in Birmingham on 12th November 1913. Now that's what I call a wait!
His parents eventually married on 1st June 1914.

[lancsann]

In this particular church baptisms were done during Lent. LAN-ops shows several baptisms during March 1847.

I like the suggestion that somebody did a round up. The 4th April baptisms seem to have been done by someone who was not the normal official and the same I think applied to the Christmas Day ones.

I have a family too where 7 children were baptised on the same day but again fortunately the vicar wrote their dates of birth in the register.

[Pheno]

My 2x great grandfather was born on 15 April 1796 and baptised on 27 March 1815 when he was 18!  He lived in the same road as the church in Hull.

He was a brickwall as I had despaired of ever finding his parentage without a baptismal record but there it was with his birth date noted so don't ever give up.

His two siblings were baptised in the years in which they were born so don't know what happened to him.

Pheno

[Mart 'n' Al]

I've never given a thought to a gap of a few months between birth and baptism. I've got more than one example of several children from a family all being baptised at once during their childhood. All I can guess is that somebody encouraged the parents to suddenly get it done.

Martin

[Bee]

Did it cost to have a child baptised?

[BumbleB]

Helping someone else, I found the following:

Born 1829 - Leicestershire      Married 1849 - Kensington       Baptised:  1852 - South Africa

[lmfamilyresearch]

I have one where my 3x g-grandfather was born in 1819 in Aberdeenshire and was baptized on the same day as his son in 1843 in Toronto Canada.  I also have found another ancestor born in 1810 and baptized in 1812.  Needless to say, for me, I don't find it uncommon to find someone baptized months or years after birth.  I just wish they always included the date of birth on the baptism registration.

[Maiden Stone]

I think you may find that it was not usual for clergy to baptise newborns during Lent and perhaps from Advent or Epiphany right  through to Easter Day.   I think if the baby was sickly,  a private baptism was arranged.   

I've never heard of that regarding baptisms. Lent lasts 6 weeks. Some babies didn't live that long; even a baby born healthy might fall victim to fatal illness. Unbaptised babies weren't buried in churchyards in 1840s England and few places had cemeteries.
Marriages were discouraged during certain times of the church year. Lent and Advent were periods of penance, fasting and reflection in preparation for the feasts of Easter. Holding a wedding celebration would have been considered incompatible with the mood of those seasons.
Baptisms would have been arranged for whatever date suited both family and clergyman. There might have been more baptisms in a parish in some months for a variety of factors. Births in rural parishes may have had seasonal fluctuations e.g. ag. labs leaving for temporary work elsewhere, or staying home and working 18-hour days in summer; in contrast there were long nights and less work in winter.