RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: River Tyne Lass on Monday 27 February 17 13:51 GMT (UK)
-
My great grandfather's baby sister Elizabeth Conroy was buried at St Mary RC Church in Hexham on 1st June 1864, entry no. 272. At the bottom of her burial entry is this latin in handwriting:
'Ob periculum mortis dormi baptizatus est a Margarita Dalton.'
Would anyone be able to translate this for me?
Baby Elizabeth had also been baptized at St Mary RC Hexham. The baptism entry records that she was born on 7 May 1864 and baptized on 8 May 1864. Her parents were my great x 2 Grandparents James and Elizabeth Conroy nee Fitzpatrick. Elizabeth's sponsors were James Dalton and Ann Rogers.
Just for a little bit of background information - from my research I believe that my Great x 2 Grandparents had an association/friendship with a Margaret Dalton who was the wife of a Patrick Dalton and she was also the daughter of a Jacob and Ann Miller nee Readhead. Margaret's neice - Isabella Miller went on to marry Thomas Conroy who was the brother of my great Grandfather Simon Peter Conroy. Margaret had a son called James Dalton who may be the sponsor named in this baptism entry.
I will be very grateful for any help anyone can give in translating the above latin message
-
The expected spelling would be ...
Ob periculum mortis domi baptizata est a Margarita Dalton
which translates as ...
Because of danger of death, she was baptised at home by Margaret Dalton
-
Because of the risk of sleep was baptized by Margaret Dalton
SORRY i used gxxgle tranxlate
-
Thank you both so much for the speedy response answers to my question. I really appreciate your help with this and now will add this to my family history information.
Perhaps Margaret did not know for certain that Elizabeth had already been baptised and wanted to play safe, just in case. Baby Elizabeth's parents were hawkers and I speculate that they may have left the baby in Margaret's care for whatever reason.
Many, many thanks☺
-
Why do you think she was baptised twice? Was there a date of baptism after the Latin inscription on the burial entry?
You said she was born 7th May, baptised 8th May, buried 1st June. When was the other baptism? What does the entry of 8th May in St. Mary's Church baptism register say?
-
Elizabeth was first baptised at St Mary RC in Hexham on 8th May. I found this out a while back when I was able to visit Northumberland Archives at Woodhorn. There is something else written in latin on the entry in addition to what I have already mentioned but I could not make out what it said at all unfortunately.
I presumed from the above responses that I have received to my question that Margaret baptised Elizabeth at home and this is what I mean by a second baptism. Or might this have been another type of annointing?
Thank you for responding - I do appreciate this
-
I may be wrong & perhaps stan or others can put me right but my understanding is the, in extremis and in the absence of a minister, a lay person may baptise.
See note 1 here
https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-worship/worship/texts/initiation/emergencybaptism.aspx
I would think Margaret's baptism was the first, not the second. Perhaps Margaret felt an emergency baptism was required & when Elizabeth lived to the next day an official baptism took place?
Stan explains the 2 part ritual here
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=732731.msg5778351#msg5778351
-
R.C. church also permits lay people to baptise in such cases. ( My classmates and I were instructed how to perform a simple baptism as part of an R.E. lesson at secondary school, in case there was ever a need. Some girls would have become nurses and midwives.)
At a time of high infant mortality doctors, midwives, nurses, family members, friends and neighbours would all probably be familiar with the ritual. A midwife, who, in a poor area may have been a neighbour, would have carried out many emergency baptisms of newborns not expected to survive.
The simple form of baptism which I was taught: No need for holy water. Words: " I baptise thee N.(if a name has been chosen) in the Name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost." Also no need for godparents.
If the baby survived, parents might take it to church at a later date. There the priest would perform the rest of a usual baptism ceremony. Godparents would make promises on behalf of the child, there would be prayers, candle, white garment etc. The priest might carry out the pouring water over the baby's head and naming of the child, just in case it hadn't been done the 1st time. (I'm not quite sure about the last bit.)
After the ceremony, priest would enter details in baptism register. He would add a note explaining it was a supplementary ceremony. It might be in the form as for Elizabeth, above or other wording. A baptism register of 18thC I looked at last week had the words "supplying defect " (abbreviated) in such cases. Many babies in that rural parish were baptised by a doctor.
In Elizabeth's case it seems like her survival was uncertain from birth, so Margaret baptised her the following day.
I've read several enquiries like this on here in past few weeks.
Why don't you post the other Latin bit you can't read. Someone may be able to decipher and translate.
Have you seen the baptism entry of 8th May? What does that say? If there was a 2nd ceremony, there may be an additional entry between 8th May- 1st June. ( A baptismal register at an R. C. church in Burnley, Lancs. had some double entries. In those cases 1st baptisms were at workhouse.)
-
Thank you so much for your posts on this subject. I really appreciate all this - very informative indeed! :) I did wonder how, Margaret, as a lay person, could perform a baptism.
I found the baptism and the burial record quite a while back when I was able to get to the archives. Unfortunately, it may be quite a while before I am able to get to the Northumberland Archives again. At the time I just noted down the basics. I also noted down the latin above and wrote down 'and there is something else'. The writing was not legible to me at all but I think it was more latin. I think baby Elizabeth must have been ailing from the start as most of her siblings were not baptized until about 1-3 weeks after their birth rather than the day after as in Elizabeth's case.
I am intrigued now to find out more. I think I will put another post out next week on the Northumberland area of RootsChat and see if any kind RootsChatters out there who are visiting this Archives can make out the end bit. I believe the Archives are closed this week due to obtaining a large acquisition of some sort.
I really appreciate every thing that has been posted on this subject. This has been a real education on the baptism topic. Many, many thanks. :)
-
I've just finished transcribing some RC baptisms though a little more recent than this. Baptisms carried out at home (or hospital) 'in danger of death' were recorded in the church register along with the other more usual baptisms caried out in the church.
I suspect that this record is like that but I can check it for you next week when the archives re-open
Christine
-
I found one today from 1850. The entry contained the additional words "Coeremoniae sunt supplendae". Off the top of my head, that's something like "extra ceremonies were carried out".
Another example of a granddaughter of my 4xG grandparents.
Anna Lupton born 13th April 1815, baptised St. Peter's R.C. Mission 16th April 1815.
The priest has written a note:
"Anna Lupton was not expected to live and was baptised on her birthday 'in periculo' by Joanna Blacoe. This is a supplementary baptism, complete with godparents."
A disused tithebarn was being used as a chapel at this time. I imagine that the priest visited the home to conduct the 2nd ceremony. Joanna Blacoe was a member of another staunch Catholic family which was related to the baby's family, ( probably several times over). She may have attended at the birth.
I remembered something else from my lesson on emergency baptism. The subject of stillborn babies and any which died within a very short time of birth was raised. (Cheerful topics for a class of 12 & 13 year-olds.) The nun's advice was to baptise them anyway. This, from the belief that the soul doesn't leave the body immediately at death. Not sure if her advice was in strict accordance with Canon Law, or simply the words of a kindly woman.
-
Where private baptisms occur in the Church of England (sometimes for emergency purposes and other times for extremely rural areas with no church) they are followed up by a notice that the child was 'received into the church'. I'm thinking that these extra ceremonies may be the RC equivalent.
I've not come across them myself so very interesting.
Incidentally, there should never be a second baptism - Canon Law dictates that a person is only baptised once.
Christine
-
A baptism "in periculo" of a child of a Catholic family can be performed by a lay person of any Christian denomination. The baby is being baptised into the Christian church, not into a particular denomination. So, for instance a midwife or doctor in attendance may baptise the baby. Other denominations have different rules. An optional prayer at the emergency baptism is the Apostle's Creed, known to most Christians. It is preferable, but not necessary, that 1 or 2 witnesses be present. The baptism should be notified to the church and entered in the register.
I checked up on baptising stillborn babies. Our nun's instruction was in accordance with Canon Law. In such cases the baptism should be preceded by the words "If thou art alive" and is a "conditional " baptism.
-
Thank you both very much for these additional responses. It is very kind of you indeed, Christine to offer to try to find out more for me when the archives re-open next week. :) I am intrigued now to find out more so I really appreciate this.
I really appreciate your posts too Maiden Stone. I have been very interested to read the information you have provided. :)
Baby Elizabeth also had a sister called Catherine who died about toddler age and is also buried at St Mary, Hexham. For those who may share the same family tree or be interested, the other children were Mary, Joseph, Simon Peter (my great Grandfather), James, John, Michael, Thomas; Catherine and Elizabeth were the two youngest. My Great Grandfather, Mary and Thomas all remained in the North East. My research suggests to me that Joseph and James went to live in America (Pennsylvania area) and that the latter died in a coal mine accident; I do not have a clue about how John and Michael ended their days. Incidentally, Michael's birth/baptism is as 1859 on-line on his baptism record but this is incorrect. I have looked at the record at Tyne and Wear Archives and he was actually born in 1857. I can see how the error has been made because there is a little hook on the 7 which makes this look like a nine. However, his entry is definitely with the 1857 entries and before the 1858 ones. He was baptized at the Roman Catholic Church at Stella - St Mary & St Thomas Aquinas. A James Conroy & Elizabeth Fitzpatrick also married at this Church in 1859. I believe these are my Great x 2 Grandparents and I have obtained a copy of the marriage certificate. If what I suspect is true then their marriage took place after the births of several of their children.
Many, many thanks for all your help and information. This is great!
-
I'd like to thank Maiden Stone & c-side for the useful information too. I've learned so much on RC ;D
-
River Tyne Lass. Were you able to submit a correction for consideration to the online site? I do this if I have evidence and sources.
-
Hi Maiden Stone,
Yes, I did notify the on-line site of the error a while back. The response I received back was that unfortunately they would be unable to correct the error but they suggested that I could inform others myself. This is the first time I have informed others on a public forum:
I found the correct year date for Michael at Tyne and Wear Archives on microfilm number 1799. He was born on the 11 August 1857 and was baptised on 30 August 1857 at St Mary & St Thomas Aquinas Roman Catholic Church. His parents were recorded as Jacobi Conroy & Elizabeth Fitzpatrick and his sponsors were Patricius Maguire and Maria Conroy.
As I say, I can understand how the mistake occurred as the 7 does have a little round hook on the end which could make it look like a nine, so I don't blame the transcriber who made this error. I suppose we all make mistakes. I am just glad to have the opportunity to set the record straight at last. :)
-
I looked at the baptism today and I’m not at all surprised that you couldn’t read it. There were three of us attempting the challenge and we still truly have no idea. The problem is bad handwriting combined with a foreign language.
The first part is as translated for you early in this thread followed by et (and). Then we decided it looked like ‘praces te ad hinbria’ though, apart from ‘ad’, none of these are latin words and I can’t think of any common baptismal phrase which comes close. Maiden Stone – does it remind you of anything?
Sorry not to be of help but I can confirm that this entry is simply a record of the home baptism and does not mean that the child was baptised twice.
Christine
-
we decided it looked like ‘praces te ad hinbria’ though, apart from ‘ad’, none of these are latin words and I can’t think of any common baptismal phrase which comes close.
Perhaps ... et precibus adhibitis (= and with prayers offered up).
ADDED
A similar phrase cropped up recently on another thread ...
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=765173.9
-
Thank you so much Christine for checking this at the archives for me. At least it is not just me who has been unable to make out all the writing on the entry. I really appreciate your efforts anyway in trying to find out what this says. This has been extremely kind of you. :)
Also, thank you too Bookbox for taking the time out to respond with your information. :) It does sound very likely, that the entry might end with some like .. 'and with prayers offered up'.
I have certainly gained an education on Roman Catholic practices through all the responses to my original post. So a big thank you to everyone who has contributed in helping me with this. :)
-
That's a good call on precibus adhibitis though when I visualise the writing I saw yesterday I am having difficulty in making it quite fit. However I'm fairly certain that however he wrote it that is what he meant ;D
Christine