Along the same lines ... I have a set of 3G-grandparents, both of whom were born in Ireland, and who were therefore almost certainly Catholic, wandering around Sussex in the early 1800s. I have found at least 4 children whose births are recorded in later census returns as Rye, Iden, Lock, and Pett (all within 10 miles of Rye) between 1801 and 1813.
I've done a little research,and it seems that there were no Catholic churches in or around Rye in those days, and none of these births are recorded by the LDS. So I'm guessing that baptisms would have taken place in some unofficial place of Catholic worship - perhaps the house of a prominent Catholic. But then, presumably, there would be no records.
Can anyone enlighten me as to whether this scenario is accurate?
I know this is an ancient thread but I thought I'd suggest answers to a couple of questions.
England was a mission country for the Catholic church.
There were unofficial R.C. places of worship if there were enough Catholics to gather and if there was a priest in the area or visiting. It may have been in a house, inn, barn, room above a shop, if the owner was Catholic or sympathetic. There were "Mass rocks" in Ireland, used in penal times.
Catholic church buildings hadn't long been legalised when that family turned up in Sussex.
"Riding priests" travelled around to minister to their flock in their mission area.
Custom was to baptise a baby at home soon after birth; the priest, if there was one, visited the house. Priest may have had a notebook to record baptisms or he may not. He may have had one and lost it. Their registers were small notebooks which would fit into a coat pocket, a satchel or saddlebag. Those begun prior to 1837 might contain "illegal" marriages. Some doubled as account books or general notebooks if it was the priest's only notebook.
There may have been no priest. A baby or child who was thought to be in danger of death could be baptised by anyone.
A priest cousin of my 2xGGF from Lancashire, the R.C. stronghold of England, spent most of his ministry in the South of England, from 1840s. He used to say Mass in houses where there was no church. When there were enough parishioners to justify it, he looked for a site for a church. He was vicar-general (bishop's deputy who oversaw admin & legal stuff & commissioned architects) of Southwark Diocese, of which Sussex was then part.
The children were actually baptised at 4 different churches. The first at CE and all the rest at 3 RC churches in Preston, as the familiy moved. I can only think they converted, there would be no other reason for an RC couple to marry or baptise a child CE in late 1850s -early 60s. It just doesn't make sense otherwise.
Maybe someone else reading this board, may know if a record was made for conversion to RC.
A few Catholic couples continued to marry in C. of E. after 1837. It was simple as no registrar was needed. A pair of my R.C. ancestors married at a Preston C. of E. parish church in 1843.
Some Catholic churches had conversion registers. An adult might have had a conditional baptism which was entered in the ordinary baptism register.
It may have been a mixed marriage. They may have been Catholics who lapsed and then returned to the church, perhaps when eldest child was ready for school.
