General Chat

Does anyone have any idea how frequently this happened?
If it makes any difference I'm looking at Cornwall.

Patrick

Maybe because the vicar wouldn't marry the unchristened.

Or possibly because he/she did not know if they'd been baptised already and/or could not produce a baptism certificate or witness.

Ones I've spotted around that time period have been mainly in Kent. And, not that many obvious ones. Although some vicars did not record ages on baptism even when they were obviously not new-borns, so perhaps there are rather more than we think.

But overall, a fairly small minority I'd say.

Jill

My family made a practice of only christening the first born, which made family tree work very difficult. Come 1837 they registered but didn,t christen.

Happy days

I know for sure that my x2 Gt Grandfather was only christened at 18 (in London). I just wonder how unusual this practice might have been.
I'm still trying track down HIS father & have a rough dob. But looking at possiblities on the IGI I've no way of knowing whether possible individuals in c.1795 were being christened (as is normal?0 at 6-12 mths or as adults. If the latter, then of course I'm on the wrong trail??

Minnie - actually that's a sensible thought, noting that he actually got married shortly thereafter!!

Thanks Jill!

I must admit that if I come across a baptism I assume, unless it's stated otherwise, or clear from other evidence, that the baptism happened within the first month or two of the child's life.

Jill

What Demomination was he?

Baptists don't have their babies baptised, they are presented or dedicated instead. (Soory any Baptisit out there, if I haven't got the terminology quite right).

The decision to be Baptised is left up to the individual person. They can chose to be Baptised, when they are old enough.

As Minnie said, some vicars would not perform a marriage service, if the Bride or Groom couldn't prove that they had been baptised.



Tess

actually it was reasonably common


many parents couldn't afford to baptize their children, so it wasn't done when they were babies

OR they lived in a place where there wasn't a vicar, so no means of baptising children


so you would get bulk christenings


you reasonably frequently find people being baptised just before starting work ............ especially as a servant. The employer may have demanded proof that a new employee/apprentice was baptised


OR they were about to get married, and the vicar demanded that both bride and groom be baptized before he would conduct the ceremony.




sylvia

Thanks for all these thoughts folks!
I now suspect that the decision for a late christening (COE) was probably a combination of poverty at birth & an upcoming marriage!

I have one set of ancestors who are all described as "Baptised as adults". They are also described as "registered at Dr. Williams' Library" which is now an archive of non-conformist records held at the Congregational Library in London (Source of family information a private publication of family records).

However the particular ancestor I remembered wae also a BA. MA, DD Oxon, and went on to be Hon Canon, Precentor and sub[Dean of St. Peter's Cathedral, Adelaide - so I ldon'/t think he would have been a nonconformist then!

I have several families that were all baptised on the same day
New borns and children up to about 7
Get the impression that the vicar visited every now and again ,then did a job lot.Maybe it was cheaper this way,or they were far away from a local church

Howard,

Thanks for your very detailed comments!

Patrick

Thanks Howard. You have given me food for thought!