Buried days before baptism? Surely not?

[stanmapstone]

I have seen a baptism a few weeks before a man got married!

If this was in the Church of England then 'The Book of Common Prayer', has this comment: "It is convenient that the new-married persons should receive the holy Communion at the time of their Marriage, or at the first opportunity after their Marriage." You had to be baptised to receive Communion, so this is why, sometimes, people got baptised before their wedding.

Stan

[LizzieW]

3 of my g.gran's children got baptised on the same day. Aged 6, 3 and 3 months.  I think it was cheaper to baptise a group of children, rather than separately.  They were my half great aunts and uncle.  My g.gran, after the death of her husband, set up home with my mysterious g.grandfather.

[stanmapstone]

3 of my g.gran's children got baptised on the same day. Aged 6, 3 and 3 months.  I think it was cheaper to baptise a group of children, rather than separately. 

The Church of England has never charged fees for Baptisms. See https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=762491.msg6142037#msg6142037
The only cost would be for the family 'get together' afterwards.

Stan

[LizzieW]

Thanks Stan.

Not sure why they waited then, although the eldest child was baptised nearly 14 months after her birth.

[coombs]

That may be why baptisms can be misleading if they are only 10 years prior to a wedding date, if the person was not a baby or infant, and the age at baptism is not listed. For example a Joseph Soap married in 1750 but was baptised in 1739. And the register doe not say age at baptism, but Joe was 10 years old. It can make researchers think they are 2 different people, when all along they are the same person. Sometimes we discard entries (long distance away, dates not fitting, baptised 5 year before marrying) when they are the right ones all along.