Baptismal Sex-Discrimination

[D_Anthony_H]

This is the Parish Register image


Copyright image removed
I apologise to the Copyright Editor.  I did not realise that this was not allowed.  I will not do it again.

The image is part of a Parish Record, a page from the Radford Semele Parish Record.  It registers the baptism on 16 August 1822 of "Mary daughter of" and then "William & Mary" and then "Tandy".   I have seen this image with my own eyes.

[Nick29]

I'm confused - what is the connection between baptism and civil registration ?

I'm not particularly religious these days, but as far as I'm aware, baptism is a religious ceremony which is somehow supposed to ensure that the child enters 'The Kingdom of Heaven'.

Civil Registration, on the other hand, is all about making the State aware of a person's existence, so they can be taxed and traced.

Now, although both of these are very useful to the genealogist, I can't see the connection ?   Many people 150 years ago couldn't afford to baptise all their children.

[stanmapstone]

I'm confused - what is the connection between baptism and civil registration ?

Many people 150 years ago couldn't afford to baptise all their children.

Baptism is a religious ceremony and has nothing to do with civil registration.
The Church of England has never charged fees for Baptisms, (unlike weddings and funerals) except in a few exceptional places . Under Ecclesiastical law no fee can be charged for the administration of Sacraments, though the canon suggests that a fee may be payable where there is an ancient custom to that effect. The Baptismal Fees Abolition Act was passed in 1872, under which no fee can be charged for baptism notwithstanding any ancient custom to the contrary.  The purpose of this act was to make the law clear in respect of fees for baptisms or for registering baptisms, it appeared that fees were being charged in some parishes, and it was intended to put an end to this system.

The legal position was that by the development of local custom, fees, often known as surplice fees, had become payable to parochial clergy for the performance of occasional offices. If this custom had existed from "time immemorial" then it was recognised by the common law and was legally-enforceable, and such customs were also recognised by Canon Law. However legally "time immemorial" means before 3rd September 1189, and the payment of fees could not be enforced if the custom in question did not exist, or could not have existed before this date. It was because Baptismal fees were always of doubtful legality, and difficulties could arise where the local custom was unclear, that the Baptismal Fees Abolition Act of 1872 was introduced. It was not until 1938 that legislation established parochial fees tables on a national basis for any parish when such powers was given to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners.

Stan

[suey]

My goodness Andy that was fast. I accept the Hannah=Susannah. William Tandy & Elizabeth Wilson were married 20 November 1821 so I do not accept Mary. However one out of two is excellent from my viewpoint.
David

Crumbs! If I discounted all the children baptised before or very soon after the parents marriage I'd have no family tree    Add to that the fact that two of my families and one of hubby's can't decide on their surname, living with one and baptising children with another...well, I may as well give up now 

[rancegal]

   I don't know if it will help you in this case.
   It was possible that these 'missing' girls were baptised just before they married. Until fairly recently couples marrying in the C of E had to be baptised according to the rites thereof before they could be married there. I have also heard that when the eldest daughter was to be married, it wasn't uncommon for all the children to be baptised as a sort of 'job lot'.


  Stan you are a mine of information! So now we know when 'time immemorial' actually began. Why that particular date (Sept 3 1189)?
    If there was no fee for baptisms, I wonder why my gt grandad had about 6 of his children baptised in one go? One of them had no other proof of his existence. His father went down to the (part-time) Register Office to register the birth and it was shut, so he didn't bother any more. My mother said he probably spent the fee on drink.

[D_Anthony_H]

It wouldn't surprise me Jenny if you actually have found Mary Tandy.  Her age is right - she would be 18 at the time of the 1841 Census and therefore correctly listed as 15.  A difficulty is the wrong name for the mother - Mary and not the expected Elizabeth.  This may have been a silly mistake made by the Curate (Thomas Chapman).  Thomas Chapman's records appear to be secondary records written up in

loose sheets or in rough notebooks and copying them into the register book at the end of the year

(I quote from the Dictionary of Genealogy.)  Thomas Chapman's handwriting is extremely regular on the page, just as if written at one sitting.  A "give away" is his mistake - he crosses out the entry at the top of the page because it is a duplicate of an item already written on the previous page.  The item crossed out is dated July 7 - and the item that was previously written is halfway up the previous page and is dated May 5.  This "William & Mary Tandy" only had the one child.  If we change the parents names to "William & Elizabeth" then the baptismal date of 14 September 1822 fits quite nicely after the marriage date (of William & Elizabeth) of 20 November 1821.

Fortunately Mary Tandy is not my ancestor, so I have less interest in her.  If she were my ancestor, I hope that I would have resisted the temptation.  I can't find Mary in the 1851 Census.  I can find a 14 September 1851 marriage of Mary Tandy & William Parkins in Radford Semele.  In 1861 Mary Parkins aged 38 who was born in Radford Semele was living with her husband William in Coventry.  So that will be the one baptised.  But was her mother called Mary or was it Elizabeth?  I cannot overcome my doubts, so I dismiss her with the feeble excuse that she is someone peripheral to my tree.

However Jenny, you did well.
 
Warwickshire Parish Records are Ancestry Copyright, from www.ancestry.co.uk
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

[D_Anthony_H]

Thomas Chapman was the Officiating Minister at the baptism of Susanna/Hannah.  This error of name is more understandable than the Elizabeth/Mary puzzle.

But the same Cleric!

[majm]

There was also an elder brother Thomas who was 16 and had left home. 

Hi there,

I noticed mention of the surname TANDY, so I have read your thread carefully, and noticed Thomas TANDY.

At the very very long linked thread below, there’s been a search for a Thomas TANDY, who married a Bertha GORHAM in New Zealand, and they had a son, Thomas George TANDY.  Sadly, Thomas Tandy (the husband) disappeared, and Bertha then re-married in NSW Australia.   

Short version:
Bertha was baptised in 1830 in Kent, with her mother as Amelia GORHAM, and no mention of her father.
Amelia married some three years later, and the family moved to NSW, where sadly Amelia died in 1839.  Bertha’s stepfather re-married and so Bertha stayed on with that growing family, who in 1841 migrated to the very new British Colony of New Zealand.   Bertha grew up, married, had a son, became a widow, returned to NSW and re-married in May 1853.   After over 190 posts on the thread, there is still two mysteries …. Who was Thomas Tandy, Bertha’s first husband; and what happened to their son, Thomas George Tandy.     

May I ask, that if you have any information about “your” Thomas TANDY, that you please consider posting on the very long thread on the Aussie Board.

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,568319.0.html 

Cheers,  JM

[majm]

   I don't know if it will help you in this case.
   It was possible that these 'missing' girls were baptised just before they married. Until fairly recently couples marrying in the C of E had to be baptised according to the rites thereof before they could be married there. I have also heard that when the eldest daughter was to be married, it wasn't uncommon for all the children to be baptised as a sort of 'job lot'.


  Stan you are a mine of information! So now we know when 'time immemorial' actually began. Why that particular date (Sept 3 1189)?
    If there was no fee for baptisms, I wonder why my gt grandad had about 6 of his children baptised in one go? One of them had no other proof of his existence. His father went down to the (part-time) Register Office to register the birth and it was shut, so he didn't bother any more. My mother said he probably spent the fee on drink.

Mr Google helped me on that date question some time ago  and I am sure Mr Stan will have greater depth of info, but here's the link I have just re-found

From http://sixthformlaw.info/03_dictionary/dict_t.htm
Defining : Time Immemorial
....  So, 3 September 1189 is the accession of Richard I.     The Statute of Westminster in 1275 is responsible for setting the date back to 3 Sept 1189.

Cheers,  JM