12 children but only 5 baptized

[Time Runner]

Hi everyone,

In southeast England in the mid-1800s my 3xgreat-grandmother had five kids who were all baptized. She went on to have seven more children, only none of them have baptism records (that I can find) even though the family remained in the same parish throughout.

I'm stumped as to why this might be. There appears to be unbroken parish-record coverage for the period in question, so... I'm stumped.

Any thoughts?

[goldie61]

Welcome to Rootschat.

It would be helpful if you could give some specific names and dates, then people would be able to try and see what is happening.
 

[jorose]

Were the first five children baptised soon after each birth, or as a group at some point? That might hint to how reliable the family's church attendance was generally.

It's possible that something happened between kids 5 and 6. For example the family might have converted to a dissenters church which either did not practice infant baptism, or whose records are less readily available.

Or the church started charging for baptisms (this was apparently common enough that they outlawed it in 1872 : https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~framland/genealogy/acts/ufs.htm )

[manukarik]

There can be any number of reasons for this. A vicar refused to baptise one of my grandmother's dying chilldren, because the child's father wouldn't or couldn't attend the baptism.

[Time Runner]

Thanks for the replies, everyone!

It would be helpful if you could give some specific names and dates, then people would be able to try and see what is happening.

Right, yes.

Phoebe Page (née Wood) and William Alfred Page had 12 kids between 1836 and 1856, all in the English parish of Brighton St Nicholas. I've found baptism records for the first five (in the years listed, not in a group):

• 1836 William Alfred
• 1838 Phoebe Elizabeth
• 1839 James
• 1841 Julia Harriette
• 1843 Martha

But I haven't been able to find baptism records for the following seven (dates are birth years):

• 1845 Jane
• 1847 Jemima
• 1849 Mary Ann
• 1851 John
• 1852 Charles John
• 1854 Stephen
• 1856 Susan

Some of the children went on to marry in the parish, and there are parish records for those events, which might suggest their parents didn't become dissenters – I don't know.

Would I be right to think that not being baptized in this period would have been pretty rare?

[KGarrad]

Baptisms were never obligatory.
Perhaps the parents "fell out" with the church or vicar?

P.S. my daughters have never been baptised!
We decided to leave it to them when they were old enough to understand.
Also meant I didn't have to make false promises in a church!

[Jebber]

Just something to consider.

Have you found the birth registrations for eleven of the children? William was born before registration began, if you haven’t found registration for the next four, but you have for the subsequent seven children, that may explain the missing baptisms.

Before registration, baptism was your proof of entitlement to parish relief if you hit hard times. With registration you had proof the same proof.

Some people were reluctant to register births in the early days of registration, they considered baptism sufficient. It is not uncommon to find early births in a family unregistered. If the later children in  your family were registered the parents may have thought baptism unnecessary.

[Time Runner]

Baptisms were never obligatory.
Perhaps the parents "fell out" with the church or vicar?

Maybe!

Have you found the birth registrations for eleven of the children?

I have, yes – or at least I've found them in the GRO indexes and crosschecked their relation to Phoebe and William Snr with census data (purchasing all the birth certificates is a project for later) – so all but William were registered, which leaves the problem of missing baptisms all the more vexing.

William Jnr was actually baptized the year before his parents were married (their marriage was registered in the fourth quarter of 1837, so right at the beginning of registration). I can't help but think there must be a story there, unless the registration came some time after the marriage. And it's tempting to imagine that someone discovered the pre-marriage birth and kicked up a fuss, which then led to a falling out with the church and the later kids not being baptized. But of course that's nothing more than a nice historical fiction! I would love to get to the factual bottom of it.

[Jebber]

Registration began on the 1st July1837.

I can’t think if any particular reason other than those already given for non baptisms. Unless they switched to a nonconformist church and the baptisms are not online.