RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Anne W on Tuesday 24 January 17 20:36 GMT (UK)
-
Does anyone know what the term " Presented at Church" means? Is it like Confirmation? My enquiry is about the Church of England in Jersey.
Three of my Rose family's children were baptised privately as babies and all three appear in the Parish records as being " Presented at Church" on the same day, 18th October 1818. They would have been aged 16, 11 and 8 on this date.
Trouble is one of them , Richmond Paton Rose born 1807, I have as dying as a baby. Certainly there is a burial for a Richmond Rose in 1807. Does this new discovery mean he didn't die at all but was alive in 1818 to be " presented at church"?
That of course would mean there was another Richmond Rose who was buried in 1807 at St Helier Jersey and that would be a bombshell!!
-
Perhaps one Richmond died as a baby and his parents gave a subsequent son the same name, a very common practice.
As far as I know, 'presented at church' refers to the public baptism of the children after they had been privately baptised some time earlier.
Bev
-
Trouble is one of them , Richmond Paton Rose born 1807, I have as dying as a baby. Certainly there is a burial for a Richmond Rose in 1807. Does this new discovery mean he didn't die at all but was alive in 1818 to be " presented at church"?
That of course would mean there was another Richmond Rose who was buried in 1807 at St Helier Jersey and that would be a bombshell!!
There does appear to be another one. The burial was on 20 Jan 1807 (in Grouville), and the baptism is recorded as being on on 28 Mar 1807. Maybe the earlier one was his grandfather??
-
I understand 'presented at church' after confirmation by the bishop, perhaps at the cathedral .... means the first time those confirmed have been to their mother church and take communion there for the first time.
This would fit in with their ages. Although they were C of E in Jersey, I have been to church there (at Grouville Church as it happens !) and note some churches there are quite 'high' so maybe this is a leftover from R.C.practices ....
-
Trouble is one of them , Richmond Paton Rose born 1807, I have as dying as a baby. Certainly there is a burial for a Richmond Rose in 1807. Does this new discovery mean he didn't die at all but was alive in 1818 to be " presented at church"?
That of course would mean there was another Richmond Rose who was buried in 1807 at St Helier Jersey and that would be a bombshell!!
There does appear to be another one. The burial was on 20 Jan 1807 (in Grouville), and the baptism is recorded as being on on 28 Mar 1807. Maybe the earlier one was his grandfather??
Thank you for pointing that out authurk. I am of course an idiot and it's no wonder this search into my Rose family has been going on for 10 years if I'm going to miss something like this! It also shows the danger of relying on other peoples research. EVERYBODY has Richmond Paton dying as a baby so I've simply never looked at him closely before.
It looks like the Richmond Rose who was buried in 1807 could be the grandfather. How exciting!!
-
While transcribing late-18th and early-19th century baptisms I occasionally come across an entry giving a birth date, a baptism date and a third date a few months later - 'Received'. I'm not sure exactly what it signifies, but it seems similar to your record?
-
While transcribing late-18th and early-19th century baptisms I occasionally come across an entry giving a birth date, a baptism date and a third date a few months later - 'Received'. I'm not sure exactly what it signifies, but it seems similar to your record?
I believe that happened after a child was baptised at home a few hours or days after birth as it wasn't expected to survive. Then if the child did survive it was received into the church in a sort of informal baptism service. This usually happened when the child was a few months old, not years later as in the example given by Anne. I think, given the ages, that Lydart's answer is far more likely and that it was after confirmation.
-
I've always thought that 'received', 'presented' and 'brought to church' related to the public welcoming of a child privately baptised but these children seem a little old for that.
One record I found was for a four year old child privately baptised as an infant who, according to the vicar, was "only now being brought to church through neglect of her parents"!
Christine
-
Another possibility:
A travelling pastor in more remote places only visiting a few times in a year and then when family are able to have a Church close by being 'received into that community'.
Regards Crowsfeet
-
There does appear to be another one. The burial was on 20 Jan 1807 (in Grouville), and the baptism is recorded as being on on 28 Mar 1807. Maybe the earlier one was his grandfather??
I've given this a bit more thought. The fact that there's no other record of the earlier baptisms of the three who were presented in 1818 may mean that the one who died in 1807 was another child whose baptism wasn't recorded.
A travelling pastor in more remote places only visiting a few times in a year and then when family are able to have a Church close by being 'received into that community'.
I'm not sure this would apply to Jersey. There are 12 ancient parishes in an island of about 45 square miles, and St Helier is the main town there. The Clergy Database doesn't have any evidence of a lack of clergy in St Helier at that time.
Incidentally, as well as the three who were received in 1818, I found the baptism of a John George Rose on 16 Jun 1816 to the same parents, also in St Helier. I wonder if at that time it came to light that the others' baptisms hadn't been recorded properly, and they came up with the idea of being "received" in order to get their names in the register and clarify their status as parishioners?
Alternatively, the marriage record (23 Dec 1800, St Helier) shows that Robert Richmond Rose, the father, was in the navy. Could the children have been born and baptised elsewhere while travelling, and then received after they settled down permanently?
Arthur
-
arthurk Robert RR Rose was Purser in the RN . I have his full naval record and he didn't go to sea again after the ship he was on HMS Pelican nearly sunk after a huge storm off St Helier in August 1800. He married Ann Walters/Waters in December 1800 and as there is no evidence that he had ever been anywhere near Jersey prior to 1800 it must have been a whirlwind courtship!
Trying to sort these Jersey born children out is proving puzzling. It would seem that my family got all their children baptised privately within days of being born. The exception being John George Rose.
Esther Jane Rose was born 24th May 1813 and was baptised privately on the 26th May. In 1818 when the 3 Rose children were Presented at Church we have Jane Mary Rose recorded as being baptised privately on 30th May 1813. No mention of Esther Jane at all!
So am I dealing with twin girls? One of whom , Esther Jane died young? Or could Robert RR and Ann have decided to change their daughters name and had her rechristened? Could you even do that? What am asking is could Esther Jane and Jane Mary be the same baby?
Jerripedia also have the birth of Robert Richmond Rose in 1809 at St Helier to my couple. Still a lot of sorting out to do!