" Presented at Church" ?

[Anne W]

Does anyone know what the term " Presented at Church" means? Is it like Confirmation? My enquiry is about the Church of England in Jersey.

Three of my Rose family's children were baptised privately as babies and all three appear in the Parish records as being " Presented at Church" on the same day, 18th October 1818. They would have been aged 16, 11 and 8 on this date.

Trouble is one of them , Richmond Paton Rose born 1807, I have as dying as a baby. Certainly there is a burial for a Richmond Rose in 1807. Does this new discovery mean he didn't die at all but was alive in 1818 to be " presented at church"?

That of course would mean there was another Richmond Rose who was buried in 1807 at St Helier Jersey and that would be a bombshell!!

[bevj]

Perhaps one Richmond died as a baby and his parents gave a subsequent son the same name,  a very common practice.

As far as I know, 'presented at church' refers to the public baptism of the children after they had been privately baptised some time earlier.

Bev

[arthurk]

Trouble is one of them , Richmond Paton Rose born 1807, I have as dying as a baby. Certainly there is a burial for a Richmond Rose in 1807. Does this new discovery mean he didn't die at all but was alive in 1818 to be " presented at church"?

That of course would mean there was another Richmond Rose who was buried in 1807 at St Helier Jersey and that would be a bombshell!!

There does appear to be another one. The burial was on 20 Jan 1807 (in Grouville), and the baptism is recorded as being on on 28 Mar 1807. Maybe the earlier one was his grandfather??

[Lydart]

I understand 'presented at church' after confirmation by the bishop, perhaps at the cathedral .... means the first time those confirmed have been to their mother church and take communion there for the first time.

This would fit in with their ages.  Although they were C of E in Jersey, I have been to church there (at Grouville Church as it happens !) and note some churches there are quite 'high' so maybe this is a leftover from R.C.practices ....

[Anne W]

Trouble is one of them , Richmond Paton Rose born 1807, I have as dying as a baby. Certainly there is a burial for a Richmond Rose in 1807. Does this new discovery mean he didn't die at all but was alive in 1818 to be " presented at church"?

That of course would mean there was another Richmond Rose who was buried in 1807 at St Helier Jersey and that would be a bombshell!!

There does appear to be another one. The burial was on 20 Jan 1807 (in Grouville), and the baptism is recorded as being on on 28 Mar 1807. Maybe the earlier one was his grandfather??

Thank you for pointing that out authurk. I am of course an idiot and it's no wonder this search into my Rose family has been going on for 10 years if I'm going to miss something like this! It also shows the danger of relying on other peoples research. EVERYBODY has Richmond Paton dying as a baby so I've simply never looked at him closely before.

It looks like the Richmond Rose who was buried in 1807 could be the grandfather. How exciting!!

[Andrew Tarr]

While transcribing late-18th and early-19th century baptisms I occasionally come across an entry giving a birth date, a baptism date and a third date a few months later - 'Received'.  I'm not sure exactly what it signifies, but it seems similar to your record?

[groom]

While transcribing late-18th and early-19th century baptisms I occasionally come across an entry giving a birth date, a baptism date and a third date a few months later - 'Received'.  I'm not sure exactly what it signifies, but it seems similar to your record?

I believe that happened after a child was baptised at home a few hours or days after birth as it wasn't expected to survive. Then if the child did survive it was received into the church in a sort of informal baptism service. This usually happened when the child was a few months old, not years later as in the example given by Anne. I think, given the ages, that  Lydart's answer is far more likely and that it was after confirmation.

[c-side]

I've always thought that 'received', 'presented' and 'brought to church' related to the public welcoming of a child privately baptised but these children seem a little old for that.

One record I found was for a four year old child privately baptised as an infant who, according to the vicar, was "only now being brought to church through neglect of her parents"!

Christine

[crowsfeet]

Another possibility:

A travelling pastor in more remote places only visiting a few times in a year and then when family are able to have a Church close by being 'received into that community'.

Regards Crowsfeet