RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: guest259648 on Tuesday 07 September 21 18:26 BST (UK)
-
Seeking to understand a mother's plan here.
The mother has 2 sons. The first to be baptised is born in an unknown year (nothing visible stated); the other is definitely born 1813 (says the register).
She baptises one son in early Jan 1820 on a Sunday.
Then she baptises the other child (aged nearly 7) three months later, in March 1820 on a Sunday in the same church.
Why didn't she baptise them together?
The son baptised second was Born At Sea, so perhaps she chose to (or had to) wait till she was back in England to baptise him, aged nearly 7.
But why the two church visits?
Please help me understand, many thanks.
-
First I take it you mean 1820 not 2020 (I have made similar errors).
You mention the son was born at sea, is it possible she had to wait for the ship to return to port to check if he had been baptised at sea (in most faiths a child may only be baptised once)?
Cheers
Guy
-
First I take it you mean 1820 not 2020 (I have made similar errors).
You mention the son was born at sea, is it possible she had to wait for the ship to return to port to check if he had been baptised at sea (in most faiths a child may only be baptised once)?
Cheers
Guy
haha
senior moment! xx
1820, yes indeed.
She may have had to wait to return to land to baptise both the children, however I can't fathom the 3-month gap in the church visits, I feel sure it's important to my understanding of this much-travelled family.
D
-
maybe a family emergency.. or..maybe she or the babe were too ill. I am unable to find my Aunt's
baptism still. (Even tho some of my uncles were baptized in batches ) My reasoning was my
Granny's dear Mother had died a few months prior... Too many deaths.
-
maybe a family emergency.. or..maybe she or the babe were too ill. I am unable to find my Aunt's
baptism still. (Even tho some of my uncles were baptized in batches ) My reasoning was my
Granny's dear Mother had died a few months prior... Too many deaths.
Thank you for your thoughts...
It does sound like some kind of emergency measure, doesn't it, it's an unusual thing to do.
However the young-ish mother seemed OK and she went on to have 4 more children; and the son born 1813 definitely survived another 40 years, and I'm almost certain the other son was OK too, if only I could find news of him...
Did they have to pay for baptisms in the early 19th century? (I've never known.) Both of the baptisms were on a Sunday, so would that be as part of a regular church service?
D
-
You say she went ‘on to have 4 more children…’
Did all the children have the same father?
If they did have the same father, there might have been doubt about the first child’s baptism. (Birth at sea ..)
There could have been a mission at church which prompted mum to reconsider.
Perhaps a change of school, church etc.
In my church, baptisms were/are usually on Sunday but not within the main service.
In recent years, this does happen sometimes but I don’t know other traditions.
-
You say she went ‘on to have 4 more children…’
Did all the children have the same father?
If they did have the same father, there might have been doubt about the first child’s baptism. (Birth at sea ..)
There could have been a mission at church which prompted mum to reconsider.
Perhaps a change of school, church etc.
heywood, thank you
No, the next 4 children were with a different father, whom she married about 12 months later.
No idea yet what happened to the father of the first 2 (the same man's name was given as the father for both of these earlier sons), but there's every possibility he was working as a Servant for someone in a fighting unit (army). But it doesn't say 'father deceased' on the baptism register... and if he hadn't been around in early 1820, surely it would? or maybe not?
Both baptisms were at exactly the same church, same ministers etc.
But 3 months apart. ???
While you're here, what exactly would a "Servant" be, in an army context? (Possibly a Scottish regiment?)
D
-
I don’t know about the army but one could imagine there would be ‘servants’ of some sort.
With regard to the baptisms, unfortunately it is all speculation.
The two baptisms seem strange to us but we don’t know her reasons.
The information on the baptism record was only what was offered to the minister.
It might just remain a puzzle. :)
-
Maybe it’s a simple reason in that having one child baptised (in January) prompted them to wonder about the one who had been born at sea and whether that child had been baptised ‘officially’. I’ve noticed in baptism registers that there are children who were baptised when they were toddlers or young children rather than as a baby. I have a 10 year old where this was the case in one of my trees but later found out that he went to a school which was linked with the church so maybe proof of baptism was needed.
-
I don’t know about the army but one could imagine there would be ‘servants’ of some sort.
With regard to the baptisms, unfortunately it is all speculation.
The two baptisms seem strange to us but we don’t know her reasons.
The information on the baptism record was only what was offered to the minister.
It might just remain a puzzle. :)
heywood
You always talk a lot of sense :-)
And yes, it's important to bear in mind that what's on the record was "what was offered" - true, or false! - or totally incomplete.
But it's a puzzle I'm going to solve, I refuse to get beaten.
I've just discovered that the son born 1813 was baptised the day before his birthday, which may be relevant.
Some of the things we see do seem strange, however humans usually behave in fairly predictable ways, and there are patterns; and somebody somewhere has usually done that thing before - so if we share stories, a clue often pops up.
I'm currently struggling with the fact I can't find a death record for the sons' father, although the mother gets married again within the year. It's a big UK port: do you think he could have just run off?! Did people in the 19th century agree to separate and not get divorced?
D
-
Maybe it’s a simple reason in that having one child baptised (in January) prompted them to wonder about the one who had been born at sea and whether that child had been baptised ‘officially’. I’ve noticed in baptism registers that there are children who were baptised when they were toddlers or young children rather than as a baby. I have a 10 year old where this was the case in one of my trees but later found out that he went to a school which was linked with the church so maybe proof of baptism was needed.
Skaife
Thank you for this insight.
Maybe the boys, now on land, were about to go a school... and the school needed them to be baptised? it could well be - however the boy born 1813 couldn't sign his name on his marriage certificate in 1841 so he didn't learn to write.
(But that's nothing new, I've just heard on the radio that about 15% of the UK population in 2021 struggle to complete official forms and find it hard to write.)
There's a concrete reason for the 2 baptisms, a decision; a requirement, a need...
If the father is deceased at baptism, does it always say so, in the record?
D
-
My reasoning earlier was the same as Skaife’s - a matter of omission or necessity.
I don’t think there was any requirement to state if the father was deceased - it would be quite rare generally.
I don’t think, either, there was a requirement for the father (or mother) to be present at baptism.
-
:D :D :D some thoughts to share ...
1841and married by a clergyman .... and so .... did the clergyman say "Sign here" or did he say "Make your mark here" ... in that era, many people obeyed the clergyman "to the letter" ...
So making their mark does not always mean they could not write.. ... and conversely, just because they signed their name does not mean they were competent in literacy and/or numeracy.
In that era in New South Wales, Australia, many children learnt to read and to write at Sabbath Schools ( Sunday Schools,) often led by lay preachers and assisted by the Ladies of the parish.
JM
-
My reasoning earlier was the same as Skaife’s - a matter of omission or necessity.
I don’t think there was any requirement to state if the father was deceased - it would be quite rare generally.
I don’t think, either, there was a requirement for the father (or mother) to be present at baptism.
heywood
I think I've only seen 'father deceased' once on a baptism record (19th century) - but the loss of the father before the birth must have happened to a certain extent, with high mortality rates, and a 9-month wait before the actual birth...
The son born-at-sea 1813 doesn't state his father's name on his marriage entry 1841.
A tentative guess at the other son (I could be wrong, but there are useful links) also omits the father's name on marriage in 1840.
So: the father was not acknowledged, or was disgraced in some way...?
Trying to build a bigger picture of what's going on.
D
-
:D :D :D some thoughts to share ...
1841and married by a clergyman .... and so .... did the clergyman say "Sign here" or did he say "Make your mark here" ... in that era, many people obeyed the clergyman "to the letter" ...
So making their mark does not always mean they could not write.. ... and conversely, just because they signed their name does not mean they were competent in literacy and/or numeracy.
In that era in New South Wales, Australia, many children learnt to read and to write at Sabbath Schools ( Sunday Schools,) often led by lay preachers and assisted by the Ladies of the parish.
JM
JM
thank you, I appreciate your thoughts.
Sunday School, Sabbath School, yes you'd need to be baptised to be included here.
So the mother, she's called Alice, could have been enrolling the boys, and to do this she needed the church's blessing.
My other thought was that she needed urgent Parish Relief? Financial & other help? I read somewhere that in the UK, baptisms were required in order to qualify for this?
I am still perplexed, however, at the 3-month gap between baptisms. It doesn't make any obvious sense...
D
-
My reasoning earlier was the same as Skaife’s - a matter of omission or necessity.
I don’t think there was any requirement to state if the father was deceased - it would be quite rare generally.
I don’t think, either, there was a requirement for the father (or mother) to be present at baptism.
The only person we can be certain was present at a baptism is the one being baptised.
It was customary for mothers to remain home or near home for 2-6 weeks after birth. Her first visit to church was traditionally for her churching ceremony, a thanksgiving for her survival, a blessing and a welcome back into church & society after her confinement. If baby was still alive, she presented its' chrism cap or cloth from baptism, at the altar, as a gesture of thanksgiving. If baby was dead by then the chrism cloth was buried with it. If her baby had been taken to church for baptism during the first few weeks after birth, it may have been taken by father or grandparent. None of this was possible for your baby born at sea 1813. (Catholic babies tended to be baptised at home within a few days of birth.)
I agree with everyone else.
I've seen families which had a child baptised then older child/children baptised a few weeks or months later. Possibly so they could be admitted to a church school or perhaps clergyman doing first baptism didn't recognise family as regular churchgoers and asked if older children were baptised.
1813 child was born at sea in wartime. Perhaps survival of mother & baby was main concern and they didn't get round to baptising it. I remember another born at sea at that time, baptised in peacetime a few years later after a baby sibling was born.
Prior to birth certificates baptism was proof of parentage. As you say that father of the children served in the forces, baptism certificates may have been required so that children might qualify for assistance from army/navy, e.g. allowance if father had died in service or subsidised education, perhaps at a naval or military school.
-
How do you know if the mother was present at either ceremony..... perhaps she only attended the second ceremony.
Are you familiar with the C of E Churching of Women practices after the birth of each child.... it would have applied in that early 19th century era....
OOPS RED Post, similar to Maiden Stone. I am on e reader, don't often get notified, my apologies to Maiden Stone.
JM
-
It is possible that the first child was baptised and the mother was asked if the other child was or not and pressured/encouraged to get him baptised which was aranged for three months later or asked three months later if he was baptised and pressured/encouraged to do so.
What is on or not on the parish records greatly depends on the vicar/parish clerk and what information they wrote. It is always useful for us for FH however the parish records/BT/parish diary was not for us it was for the church.... it might be worth checking to see if the parish diary survived as often there is more information in that
-
you ask if he may just have run off or if couples would separate without divorce. At that time, divorce was only by act of parliament so only for the (very) wealthy.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/divorce/
So, yes, you do find couples separating and remarrying bigamously. But if the person was known locally, someone might object to the banns. On Alice's marriage, which was after banns, there is no mention of her being a spinster or widow. The curate conducting the marriages doesn't seem to note marital status on the marriages and the witnesses look to be regulars as their names are on other marriages.
-
- however the boy born 1813 couldn't sign his name on his marriage certificate in 1841 so he didn't learn to write.
(But that's nothing new, I've just heard on the radio that about 15% of the UK population in 2021 struggle to complete official forms and find it hard to write.)
There's a concrete reason for the 2 baptisms, a decision; a requirement, a need...
As others have said, just because he didn't sign marriage register doesn't mean he couldn't write.
Penmanship was a particular skill just as typing is. Some pupils at elementary schools in 1820s didn't learn to use pen & ink. They may not have been at school for long enough to progress that far; it may not have been practical to teach it due to lack of resources, money or overcrowded classes; parents may have been unable or unwilling to pay extra fees for cost of ink & paper.
Difficulties with form-filling may be partly due to understanding, which in turn may have a variety of causes. Lack of confidence or of familiarity with officialdom might play a part.
I think there was a pilot census prior to 1841 census to test if enough households would be able to complete census returns unaided.
Those 2 baptisms may have been receptions into the church community, the 2nd part of a baptism, not sprinkling with water. They may have been conditional baptisms if there was doubt whether children were already baptised.
-
- however the boy born 1813 couldn't sign his name on his marriage certificate in 1841 so he didn't learn to write.
(But that's nothing new, I've just heard on the radio that about 15% of the UK population in 2021 struggle to complete official forms and find it hard to write.)
There's a concrete reason for the 2 baptisms, a decision; a requirement, a need...
As others have said, just because he didn't sign marriage register doesn't mean he couldn't write.
.....
I think there was a pilot census prior to 1841 census to test if enough households would be able to complete census returns unaided.
Maiden Stone, thank you for your knowledge & expertise.
I didn't know that about the census. I wonder what they discovered? There must have been a positive enough outcome of the pilot for them to go ahead with the 'real' one, which suggests that the general level of literacy in that period was higher than I am assuming?
By the way: regarding the 'marks' people made on church registers, have you ever noticed how different they are from one another? They're as individual as the people holding the pen: big, small, straight, crooked, thin, fat, diagonal, square-on... I've often thought of collecting them... and they're also interesting historical evidence of the different nibs that were used...
I've solved the baptisms to my satisfaction, great! and I'll put up my conclusions in a separate post.
D
-
you ask if he may just have run off or if couples would separate without divorce. At that time, divorce was only by act of parliament so only for the (very) wealthy.
https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/divorce/
So, yes, you do find couples separating and remarrying bigamously. But if the person was known locally, someone might object to the banns. On Alice's marriage, which was after banns, there is no mention of her being a spinster or widow. The curate conducting the marriages doesn't seem to note marital status on the marriages and the witnesses look to be regulars as their names are on other marriages.
osprey, many thanks.
This reply is addressed to your kind self and everyone else who's contributed here.
I've used all the suggestions which have been made, and they opened a door for me, and I've discovered what really happened in 1819/20. One more story to add to the pile: another example of human behaviour, and it may help someone else to untangle their own puzzle.
In this particular case:
2 baptisms, 3 months apart, and I asked why?
Moreover I couldn't find a death for the father and I wondered if he had run off, or if the couple had separated and remarried 'bigamously', as you (osprey) say. Well, yes, they had.
The father of the 2 sons (now aged about 30) clearly had a relationship in 1819 with an under-age girl while married to the mother of the 2 sons whose baptisms I was enquiring about. He remarried in autumn 1819, to a teenager who was 6 months pregnant (it needed her father's permission).
Meanwhile his first wife was also heavily pregnant, and I'll choose to think that she threw him out! (rather than him dumping her).
But now, without husband, the first wife needed to establish herself strongly within the new land-based community (where she stayed for 40 years). She gave birth to her son on land, probably very late 1819, and booked a baptism quickly, for early Jan 1820, which was carried out.
She also needed to baptise the older son who was Born At Sea, however in early 1820 he was already nearly 7 and in good health so there was no urgent rush. So she requested a baptism as close to his birthday as possible (the day before, which was a Sunday), to make it a memorable 'event'.
The husband who betrayed her was (forgive me) very "up himself", self-important, arrogant, worked in Customs & Excise. He and his new teenage wife then produced a torrent of children with extravagant names, & he moved them all to London to increase his perceived status further, and had even more kids.
(I like the next bit.)
Then his fortunes changed and he became 'destitute' (see London workhouse registers) and it looks like he lost everything.
Meanwhile the wife he cheated on remarried in 1821, had 4 more children with a stable husband, and one of those children built up a fine business and became the equivalent of a millionaire, and the money passed on down.
Karma, justice, whatever. It pleases me!!
So thank you RootsChat friends for guiding me along. I'm delighted to have unblocked this block, and I'm really grateful.
-
First I take it you mean 1820 not 2020 (I have made similar errors).
You mention the son was born at sea, is it possible she had to wait for the ship to return to port to check if he had been baptised at sea (in most faiths a child may only be baptised once)?
Cheers
Guy
haha
senior moment! xx
1820, yes indeed.
She may have had to wait to return to land to baptise both the children, however I can't fathom the 3-month gap in the church visits, I feel sure it's important to my understanding of this much-travelled family.
D
No what I was meaning was maybe she had to wait for the ship to return to see if her son had been baptised on board (i.e. to check the log). Baptism is supposed to be a once only occurrence and some vicars would refuse to baptise a child again if it was possible he/she had been baptised previously.
Cheers
Guy
-
First I take it you mean 1820 not 2020 (I have made similar errors).
You mention the son was born at sea, is it possible she had to wait for the ship to return to port to check if he had been baptised at sea (in most faiths a child may only be baptised once)?
Cheers
Guy
haha
senior moment! xx
1820, yes indeed.
She may have had to wait to return to land to baptise both the children, however I can't fathom the 3-month gap in the church visits, I feel sure it's important to my understanding of this much-travelled family.
D
No what I was meaning was maybe she had to wait for the ship to return to see if her son had been baptised on board (i.e. to check the log). Baptism is supposed to be a once only occurrence and some vicars would refuse to baptise a child again if it was possible he/she had been baptised previously.
Cheers
Guy
Thank you for clarifying and yes, it's a helpful point you make.
Other Rootschatters have suggested that baptisms can consist of 2 parts? (I am no expert, so please instruct me.)
In this particular case I'm now pretty sure that there was no baptism at sea (or wherever they ended up), and the mother, 6 years later (and now alone) was getting things done properly - at last!
D x