RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Keith Sherwood on Tuesday 18 September 07 23:20 BST (UK)
-
Hi, Everyone,
Having spent an enjoyable few hours at the Guildhall Library today sorting out the exact ages of the children in two multiple baptisms - 3 at one go in 1823 at St. Botolph's Aldgate, and then 4 at another go in 1830 there - I was wondering why it is/was that parents have their children baptised in a job lot in this way. Would it have been cheaper, or would it have been simply that Mum and Dad had suddenly/eventually thought that perhaps it was about time they had their offspring "done"?
Actually, I've just recollected that friends of ours had all four of their children christened recently, and I don't think I asked them the reason why...
The Guildhall Library, by the way, if people are lucky enough to be able to get there, is a wonderful place to research anything to do with the City of London; extremely obliging staff, and an apt display at the moment - for me - on Cheapside. One of the items was a drawing of the front elevations of every house in that street in 1838-1840 drawn by a John Tallis. Was able to take a photocopy of the page showing the building where my gt-gt-gt-grandfather traded from as a teadealer at exactly that time.
But I'm digressing as usual from the main theme re multiple baptisms...
Very best wishes,
Keith
-
Hi Keith
Probably got a discount for a job lot ;D ;D ;D. To be honest havnt a clue, unless there wernt enough vicars around at that time and they only came round so often
ricky
-
I think Ricky probably hit the nail on the head - it was cheaper to have them done as a "job lot"! ;)
Bill
-
One other (possible) reason, which I have encountered a few times is a 'Mixed Marriage'!
I found one Family that not only had groups of Children Christened/Baptised on the same day, but on further research found the same Children Christened/Baptismed at another Church (different Denomination)! ::)
-
Know of one family where 10 children were baptised together. Story is told that father brought half the children to church and told Rector to make a start while he went for the rest. Recently discovered that the parents were only married around this time. Father had been Presbyterian and mother was Catholic but family were baptised Church of Ireland. Am wondering if Rector made baptism of children a condition for marriage. Or marriage a condition for baptism.
Father was born 1848 m.1 in 1868 & had 5 children, m.2 & had 3 children, m.3 1920 (she was born c1890) & had 12 children. Ages for children ranges from 1869 to 1922.
-
Sometimes parents could only receive 'Parish Relief' - a kind of 'Dole payment' from the Parish Council if all the family were baptised. This could be one of many reasons.... Baptism is free!
-
There is another topic about this here:
Baptism, - Multiple B. in the RootsChat Lexicon (http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,234766.0.html)
Bob
ps. I've added this topic, too :)
-
My g.gran had her 2nd and 3rd children baptised at the same time. I think she didn't get round to baptising her 2nd child, and when the 3rd was born, she must have been ill and in need of baptising, because she died soon afterwards and I suppose she took the opportunity to baptise the 2nd child at the same time. I haven't found any baptisms for her following children.
Liz
-
I think Ricky probably hit the nail on the head - it was cheaper to have them done as a "job lot"! ;)
Bill
Under Ecclesiastical law no fee can be charged for the administration of Sacraments. “Sacramenta sunt libere conferenda” is the rule prescribed by Pope Innocent III at the Lateran Council and contained in the Decretals of Gregory IX. This rule is emphasized by the canon of Archbishop Stephen Langton made at the Council of Oxford in 1222, though the canon suggests that a fee may be payable where there is an ancient custom to that effect.
One nineteenth century Bishop said that to charge such a fee was “downright and glaring simony.”
The Baptismal Fees Abolition Act was passed in 1872, under which no fee can be charged for baptism notwithstanding any ancient custom to the contrary.
The purpose of this act was to make the law clear in respect of fees for baptisms or for registering baptisms, it appeared that fees were being charged in some parishes, and it was intended to put an end to this system.
In one case where a rector demanded a fee of two shillings for a baptism legal opinion was that;
a) No fee can be claimed for the registration of a baptism;
b) It is very doubtful whether in any case, even where there has been a custom to do so, a fee can be asked for the administration of baptism;
c) It is certain that no such fee can be recovered by law;
d) It is also certain that any clergyman refusing to baptize or to register the baptism on the ground of no fee having been paid can be proceeded against and punished under the 68th and 70th Canons of the Act of 52 George III., cap. 146.
Stan
-
If you ignore the issue of multiple baptisms then the question comes down to why are twins triplet etc born.
In the case off non identical twins this is entirely down to the fact that the woman ovulates more than one egg or in modern days the surgeon implants more han one egg.
In the case of identical twins it is because the egg divides into more than one egg usually after fertilization. Again I believe this is entirely down to the woman.
david
-
In the case of my family it was obvious that a new vicar in Thame had a round up of all the unbaptised children. In the first year after he took office the number of baptisms trebled.
-
In some cases, unknown to the priest, money was obtained by the parish clerk and sexton on the pretext of remuneration for the additional trouble and necessity for cleaning the church. This was commented on in a letter to "The Times" 28th. November 1843, by a priest who could not understand why some parishioners said they could not afford the fees.
Stan
-
The Baptismal Fees Abolition Act was passed in 1872, under which no fee can be charged for baptism notwithstanding any ancient custom to the contrary.
The purpose of this act was to make the law clear in respect of fees for baptisms or for registering baptisms, it appeared that fees were being charged in some parishes, and it was intended to put an end to this system.
In one case where a rector demanded a fee of two shillings for a baptism legal opinion was that;
a) No fee can be claimed for the registration of a baptism;
b) It is very doubtful whether in any case, even where there has been a custom to do so, a fee can be asked for the administration of baptism;
c) It is certain that no such fee can be recovered by law;
d) It is also certain that any clergyman refusing to baptize or to register the baptism on the ground of no fee having been paid can be proceeded against and punished under the 68th and 70th Canons of the Act of 52 George III., cap. 146.
Stan
In one of my Dorset parish registers, I found this
Baptisms From the First of October 1783 being the DAY on which a Tax of 3d duty to the King commenced from every Marriage, Birth or burial (excepting from those who are born of Parents that receive relief from the Parish, and those that are buried from any Work House or Hospital, or at the sole expence of any Charity)
So would it be correct that a fee was charged - and given to the King/State between 1783 and 1872? I had 3 baptised at once in Dorset (1825 - born over the preceeding 6 years). I assumed it was because "they didn't get around to it" or because of the cost - but have never been sure as to why. The previous six children in the family were all baptised shortly after birth.
Trish
-
It was not a fee required by the church, it was a tax imposed by the government. It is like saying that VAT is a fee for the shopkeeper :)
Under the Stamp Act of 1783 (23 Geo. III, c.67) a tax of three pence was levied on each Church Register entry of birth, baptism or marriage, except for paupers. The parson or other receiving the tax was allowed two shillings in the pound for the trouble involved. There was such a popular outcry against this tax that it was speedily repealed in 1794 (34 Geo, c.11), however it is interesting to note the sudden increase in the numbers of those declared to be paupers over this short period.
Stan
-
it was speedily repealed in 1794 (34 Geo, c.11), however it is interesting to note the sudden increase in the numbers of those declared to be paupers over this short period.
Stan
Thanks Stan - I knew you would have the answer - in many ways things never change :)
Trish
-
Hadn't realised this would start up quite a forum for discussion of this topic. I know that early on in my family research I used to wonder why I was turning up so many examples of "twins" on the IGI entries, until I realised that siblings of different ages were being baptised at the same time. And not all the original records of the baptisms have a note alongside of the actual date of birth; it all seemed to depend on who was incumbent vicar or curate, so it can sometimes be difficult to get at a true date of birth...
keith
-
Hadn't realised this would start up quite a forum for discussion of this topic. I know that early on in my family research I used to wonder why I was turning up so many examples of "twins" on the IGI entries, until I realised that siblings of different ages were being baptised at the same time. And not all the original records of the baptisms have a note alongside of the actual date of birth; it all seemed to depend on who was incumbent vicar or curate, so it can sometimes be difficult to get at a true date of birth...
keith
I was very lucky - mine had the ages on the baptism record (birth date would have been better) - otherwise I would have had triplets (and there were twins in this family - so triplets wouldn't have looked out of place!)
Trish
-
There can be some confusion between a fee for a Baptism and a fee for the Registration of a Baptism.
Stan
-
I found when I looked at the details in the parish records of my family's 'job lot' baptisms that also on the same occasion a brother had a batch of his children 'done'.
So I guess they would make a family occasion of it.
And often, I guess, that by the time they got round to having one chrisitened, perhaps waiting for a brother or sister to have thier baby so they could make it a joint 'do' , then the next one was on the way, so they then thought they may as well wait for that one to be born too. By which time the brother/sister was expecting their next one. By the time the occasion finally got arranged, each family had 2 or 3 children.
-
When youngest cousin was going to be baptised the family realised my sister (age 8) and cousin (age 3) hadn't been baptised before. The 3 were baptised together.