Baptism Record...Family Mystery. Help Please

[Colin Cruddace]

As I understand it, the 1830 baptism was the private one, and it was acknowledged publicly a year later (then being noted in the margin).

Alexander

I can follow your reasoning, but it seems most unlikely to me. It would make more sense if both entries were in 1831 and the main entry referred to the child's Admission/Acceptance into the Church following a Private Baptism.

Colin

[california dreamin]

Hi
Two suggestions here:

If privately baptised in 1830 there should be an entry in the register on that date- even if this second entry is for the child being received publicly in Church.

However, surely if the child had died as your relative suggests in April 1831 there should also be an entry for the child's death within the Burial section of the register (or burial pages). Might be worth double checking.

To me the entry does look like "Privately bap'd April 3 1831" perhaps the 1831 was just a clerical error with the year?

[SolomanR]

Thanks for all your opinions. I have rechecked and the date in the register is May 22nd 1830. They were a poor family so I cant see why they would pay for a private baptism

[california dreamin]

Hi

Just a point here a private baptism (as previously mentioned) was usually performed when the baby was v. ill and not expected to live.  Financial circumstances of the family did not come into it.

Kind regards

[Colin Cruddace]

Certain people were authorised to perform a Private Baptism free of charge, such as Doctors and Midwives, and since it didn't involve the Church they would not be recorded in the Parish register. When the child first entered the local Church the Christening ceremony would not include the Baptism if evidence of a previous Christian Baptism was provided.

As already suggested, I suspect the date of the Private Baptism has been entered wrongly, or even very badly, and should be 1830.

Colin