RootsChat.Com

Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: andygmandrew on Monday 04 August 25 22:49 BST (UK)

Title: Strange beginning to a baptism entry
Post by: andygmandrew on Monday 04 August 25 22:49 BST (UK)

From the registers of the church of St. Nicholas Newcastle 1 March 1697/98. Can anyone help to decipher the words before the child's name? There is also a strange mark at the end of the entry, what does it mean, perhaps short for Uxor?

Title: Re: Strange beginning to a baptism entry
Post by: maddys52 on Tuesday 05 August 25 04:14 BST (UK)

I think it means - Received, Private Baptism. William was previously privately baptised, and was now received into the Church. (Happy to be corrected if I am wrong!)

Title: Re: Strange beginning to a baptism entry
Post by: horselydown86 on Tuesday 05 August 25 05:40 BST (UK)

The letters at the end are ux with an indication of contraction (the upwards curving line).

The meaning is as you thought.

For the record, written at the beginning is:     Rec Pri: Babt

Title: Re: Strange beginning to a baptism entry
Post by: andygmandrew on Tuesday 05 August 25 08:11 BST (UK)

Thanks, that sounds likely.

Title: Re: Strange beginning to a baptism entry
Post by: hanes teulu on Tuesday 05 August 25 20:14 BST (UK)

If this is a record of Robert Kay "being received" where is the record of the "private baptism" that preceded it?
Cromwell's 5 Sep 1538 mandate required all baptisms to be recorded/registered. The rite of "being received" was not in the frame. The "private baptism" was registered plus a flag/indicator to indicate the status of the baptism for later reference. The follow up "being received" did not involve baptism - this was significant.

The Church of England's 1701 publication "The book of common prayer, and administration of the sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the church ..." explains the baptismal rite ("public", "private", "being received" and "of riper years" - sadly, nowt about the paperwork to support it!).

The few (very) records that identify "being received" that I have come across show the earlier  "private baptism" with a note against it reflecting this. It depended on the whim of the Minister/Curate performing the rite. But all this is against a background of possibly who cared diddly squat about maintaining accurate registers. Again, if the "private baptism" occurred in a different parish to what extent did the new parish attempt to identify/confirm that the new "baptism" should be a "public baptism" or a "being received"?

If someone can identify the paperwork/recording involved it would be much appreciated.