RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Stewart R on Sunday 15 February 26 15:41 GMT (UK)
-
I have found a baptism entry (1857) that has both parents names included, however i believe the father was not present. My obvious question is to ask if he was required to be there, to be included? His name does appear second (underneath the mothers name)if of any significance.
Stewart
-
What makes you believe he wasn't there? Is it because his name is below the mothers name? Was the child illegitimate
Is his name on the child's birth cert
-
Do the mother and father have different surnames?
-
The child was born in 1855, but by the time of the Baptism in 1857 the father had been posted to Plymouth with the Cheshire Militia, and had actually entered into a bigamous marriage. I'm pretty sure he wasn't arround at the time of birth either. The position of his name on the register just seemed of interest in comparison with the other entries on the page. Unfortunately I don't have the B/Cert.
Both the parents are registered with the same surname.
Thank you for your interest
Stewart
-
I have seen this sort of thing. Along the lines of 'Mary daughter of Sarah and John Smith'. All other entries having the father's name first. I've supposed that the child was illegitimate but if that is the case then why not state the mother's surname?
It's an odd one for sure.
Martin
-
I have in my tree a baptism (at 3 weeks old) where the husband of the mother is named as father, although he had died 3 years previous.
I have seen several baptisms where the child is illegitimate but the vicar/curate has named the father as a sort of "name and shame" approach.
You'll probably never know for sure, but if the mother was now alone then the baby was perhaps baptised in order to receive some help from the parish ?
Rebel
-
I have found a baptism entry (1857) that has both parents names included, however i believe the father was not present. My obvious question is to ask if he was required to be there, to be included? His name does appear second (underneath the mothers name)if of any significance.
Stewart
No, father does not need to be present.
-
That sounds pretty conclusive Wexflyer, thankyou.
Stewart
-
I have found a baptism entry (1857) that has both parents names included, however i believe the father was not present. My obvious question is to ask if he was required to be there, to be included? His name does appear second (underneath the mothers name)if of any significance.
Stewart
No, father does not need to be present.
Wexflyer is right, the baptism entry simply shows the names of the parents as reported to the person who wrote up the record. It doesn’t record whether or not they were both present.
I’ve seen a baptism entry giving the names of both parents when I know quite definitely that the father was already deceased.
-
I have a baptism entry for one of my great uncles which shows the names of both parents. But both had died within a few months of each other before his baptism, his father only days before the baptism took place, so it would have been impossible for either of them to be present at the baptism. He was brought up by an uncle and his family, so I assume they would have presented him, but they are not mentioned in the register.
So I agree, the parents names in the register don't necessarily confirm the presence of either of them at the baptism.
-
It totally depends upon who is performing the baptism.
I have a GGM whose Father is unknown, so there is just her name and that of her Mother and the Maiden name of her Mother. The person performing the ceremony did not apply any comments as to the child being born to an unmarried Mother. We see “b* child of mothers name”, “base born” etc with varying degrees of disgust written, the enlightened ones simply put the child and mothers names.
If the person performing the Baptism is aware of the status of the Mother he will probably write the names of both parents.
Often we see simply the name of the Father and the name of the Child, in older records.
The records are what they are and we cannot necessarily believe what is written.
The GGM above has her Grandfather recorded as her Father on her Marriage Certificate, so no you cannot 100% trust the records.
-
I have a great, great aunty baptised in a rural Suffolk village after her father died a few months earlier, and the baptism lists both parents, but not that the father is now deceased. Whereas I have seen some baptisms which can note "father deceased" or "mother now deceased".
If a widow/deserted wife was having children out of wedlock she may have claimed the deceased/runaway husband was the father to save face, and this will not usually be noted in the baptism. The vicar just wrote down whatever he was told, and she may have said "The dad is away at sea, or away in the army". Or the vicar may not even have questioned why one parent was not there.
99.9% of baptisms do not state if the parents were present at the baptism.