Baptism in the workhouse

[Sprocker28]

I am wondering if anyone can help me .... I have an ancestor who has two baptism records. One is recorded in the workhouse in lambeth in February 1837 and then he has another record in the local church st Mary's Lambeth In September 1837. I haven't come across this before and wondered if a baby born in the workhouse might be baptised but then be taken to the family's church for another baptism when the family leave the workhouse. I assume it's not normal for someone to be baptised twice. I would appreciate any thoughts of suggestions. Many thanks.

[healyjfch]

Not usual to have two baptisms.
My view is that the parents were not aware of the workhouse baptism, so when they left workhouse wanted to ensure that their baby was baptised.
Is  it possible that another couple were the parents.
Was it a common name & surname in the area.

[stanmapstone]

There are instances of children being baptised twice. Most probably because, as far as the Church of England was concerned, the first baptism was not lawful, or "all things were not done, as they ought to be" Or the Parish Priest was deliberately kept in ignorance of the first one.

The first question asked at the Public Baptism of Infants in the Book of Common Prayer is "Hath this Child been already Baptized, or no?".Only if the answer is 'no' can the baptism continue. If the answer is 'yes' then the Priest has to examine them further as to the find out if the child was lawfully baptized, and if the Minister shall find by the answers of such as bring the Child that all things were done as they ought to be, "then shall not he christen the Child again but shall receive him/her as one of the flock of true christian people."


Stan

[Colin Cruddace]

I doubt if a baptism conducted under the auspices of a workhouse would be considered illegal, or not done as they ought to have been. I think it more likely that the workhouse conducted an emergency private baptism, and the second was the child's reception into the Church (without the baptism ceremony).

Colin

[Sprocker28]

Thank you all for that information, food for thought! 
The ancestor is James Martin Curnow, parents William Curnow (occupation Sawyer) and Elizabeth.  These details are the same on both baptisms.  I suppose it is always possible there were two families with the same details but that seems highly unlikely.  The Curnow family are prevailent in this area but there aren't tonnes of them.  James Martin was baptised on 5 Feb 1837 aaddress given as Renfrew Road Workhouse, Lambeth and again on 6 Sep 1837 address given at Ford Street.  Both come under St Mary's Lambeth.  This is the first time I have come across any reference to the workhouse for this family but James Martin is their last child I have found, their first being born in 1801 some 36 years before which potentially makes them pretty old parents! All of their previous children have good baptismal records so maybe what Colin says in true, the second was just being welcomed into their church?

[nanny jan]

 A first child born 36 years earlier makes it somewhat unlikley that these are the same parents. Could William have married a second wife also called Elizabeth?   

[Sprocker28]

I thought the same thing Nanny Jan or perhaps this last child James Martin doesn't belong to my family!  Still a mystery about his baptisms though.  I haven't yet been able to find a marriage for my WIlliam and Elizabeth yet alone a second wife! I have yet to find any other William and Elizabeth Curnows in this area at the time.  James is not a direct ancestor so I might just have to leave him as a mystery for now! Thanks for your advice.

[ThrelfallYorky]

Could the very late child actually be a child of an earlier daughter of the parents? 36 years is a l-o-n-g family, and it's happened many times in other families.