Baptism of 2 children 3 months apart, wondering why?

[guest259648]

I don’t know about the army but one could imagine there would be ‘servants’ of some sort.
With regard to the baptisms, unfortunately it is all speculation.
The two baptisms seem strange to us but we don’t know her reasons.
The information on the baptism record was only what was offered to the minister.
It might just remain a puzzle. 

heywood
You always talk a lot of sense :-)
And yes, it's important to bear in mind that what's on the record was "what was offered" - true, or false! - or totally incomplete.

But it's a puzzle I'm going to solve, I refuse to get beaten.

I've just discovered that the son born 1813 was baptised the day before his birthday, which may be relevant.

Some of the things we see do seem strange, however humans usually behave in fairly predictable ways, and there are patterns; and somebody somewhere has usually done that thing before - so if we share stories, a clue often pops up.

I'm currently struggling with the fact I can't find a death record for the sons' father, although the mother gets married again within the year. It's a big UK port: do you think he could have just run off?!  Did people in the 19th century agree to separate and not get divorced?
D

[guest259648]

Maybe it’s a simple reason in that having one child baptised (in January) prompted them to wonder about the one who had been born at sea and whether that child had been baptised ‘officially’.         I’ve noticed in baptism registers that there are children who were baptised when they were toddlers or young children rather than as a baby. I have a 10 year old where this was the case  in one of my trees but later found out that he went to a school which was linked with the church so maybe proof of baptism was needed.

Skaife
Thank you for this insight.
Maybe the boys, now on land, were about to go a school... and the school needed them to be baptised? it could well be - however the boy born 1813 couldn't sign his name on his marriage certificate in 1841 so he didn't learn to write.
(But that's nothing new, I've just heard on the radio that about 15% of the UK population in 2021 struggle to complete official forms and find it hard to write.)

There's a concrete reason for the 2 baptisms, a decision; a requirement, a need...

If the father is deceased at baptism, does it always say so, in the record?

D

[heywood]

My reasoning earlier was the same as Skaife’s - a matter of omission or necessity.

I don’t think there was any requirement to state if the father was deceased - it would be quite rare generally.
I don’t think, either, there was a requirement for the father (or mother) to be present at baptism.

[majm]

        some thoughts to share ...

1841and married by a clergyman .... and so .... did the clergyman say "Sign here" or did he say "Make your mark here" ...     in that era, many people obeyed the  clergyman "to the letter" ... 

So making their mark does not always mean they could not write.. ... and conversely, just because they signed their name does not mean they were competent in literacy and/or numeracy. 

In that era in New South Wales, Australia, many children learnt to read and to write at Sabbath Schools ( Sunday Schools,) often led by lay preachers and assisted by the Ladies of the parish.

JM

[guest259648]

My reasoning earlier was the same as Skaife’s - a matter of omission or necessity.

I don’t think there was any requirement to state if the father was deceased - it would be quite rare generally.
I don’t think, either, there was a requirement for the father (or mother) to be present at baptism.

heywood
I think I've only seen 'father deceased' once on a baptism record (19th century) - but the loss of the father before the birth must have happened to a certain extent, with high mortality rates, and a 9-month wait before the actual birth...

The son born-at-sea 1813 doesn't state his father's name on his marriage entry 1841.
A tentative guess at the other son (I could be wrong, but there are useful links) also omits the father's name on marriage in 1840.
So: the father was not acknowledged, or was disgraced in some way...?

Trying to build a bigger picture of what's going on.
D

[guest259648]

       some thoughts to share ...

1841and married by a clergyman .... and so .... did the clergyman say "Sign here" or did he say "Make your mark here" ...     in that era, many people obeyed the  clergyman "to the letter" ... 

So making their mark does not always mean they could not write.. ... and conversely, just because they signed their name does not mean they were competent in literacy and/or numeracy. 

In that era in New South Wales, Australia, many children learnt to read and to write at Sabbath Schools ( Sunday Schools,) often led by lay preachers and assisted by the Ladies of the parish.

JM

JM
thank you, I appreciate your thoughts.

Sunday School, Sabbath School, yes you'd need to be baptised to be included here.
So the mother, she's called Alice, could have been enrolling the boys, and to do this she needed the church's blessing.

My other thought was that she needed urgent Parish Relief? Financial & other help?  I read somewhere that in the UK, baptisms were required in order to qualify for this?

I am still perplexed, however, at the 3-month gap between baptisms. It doesn't make any obvious sense...
D

[Maiden Stone]

My reasoning earlier was the same as Skaife’s - a matter of omission or necessity.

I don’t think there was any requirement to state if the father was deceased - it would be quite rare generally.
I don’t think, either, there was a requirement for the father (or mother) to be present at baptism.

The only person we can be certain was present at a baptism is the one being baptised.
 It was customary for mothers to remain home or near home for 2-6 weeks after birth. Her first visit to church was traditionally for her churching ceremony, a thanksgiving for her survival, a blessing and a welcome back into church & society after her confinement. If baby was still alive, she presented its' chrism cap or cloth from baptism, at the altar, as a gesture of thanksgiving. If baby was dead by then the chrism cloth was buried with it. If her baby had been taken to church for baptism during the first few weeks after birth, it may have been taken by father or grandparent. None of this was possible for your baby born at sea 1813. (Catholic babies tended to be baptised at home within a few days of birth.)

I agree with everyone else.
I've seen families which had a child baptised then older child/children baptised a few weeks or months later. Possibly so they could be admitted to a church school or perhaps clergyman doing first baptism didn't recognise family as regular churchgoers and asked if older children were baptised.
1813 child was born at sea in wartime. Perhaps survival of mother & baby was main concern and they didn't get round to baptising it. I remember another born at sea at that time, baptised in peacetime a few years later after a baby sibling was born.
Prior to birth certificates baptism was proof of parentage. As you say that father of the children served in the forces, baptism certificates may have been required so that children might qualify for assistance from army/navy, e.g. allowance if father had died in service or subsidised education, perhaps at a naval or military school.   

[majm]

How do you know if the mother was present at either ceremony..... perhaps she only attended the second ceremony. 

Are you familiar with the C of E Churching of Women practices after the birth of each child.... it would have applied in that early 19th century era....


OOPS RED Post,  similar to Maiden Stone.   I am on e reader, don't often get notified,  my apologies to Maiden Stone.

JM

[iluleah]

It is possible that the first child was baptised and the mother was asked if the other child was or not and pressured/encouraged to get him baptised which was aranged for three months later or asked three months later if he was baptised and pressured/encouraged to do so.

What is on or not on the parish records greatly depends on the vicar/parish clerk and what information they wrote. It is always useful for us for FH however the parish records/BT/parish diary was not for us it was for the church.... it might be worth checking to see if the parish diary survived as often there is more information in that