Non baptism?

[Ray T]

No direct evidence but I get the impression that girls were more likely to be baptised than boys.

[coombs]

I have an ancestor born c1763/1764 in Suffolk, most likely, whose baptism I have never been able to find, but the parents were millers and they flitted between Norfolk and Suffolk and moved around a lot. He had 2 older siblings baptised in 1750 and 1760, but I found a 4th sibling who died in 1774 but no age at death but the parents names were given on the burial. No baptism has been found for the final child either.

20 years ago at Lowestoft, a long standing archivist there said there could be many reasons, or maybe the Titshall's were out of Suffolk when the baby was born 1763/1764.

[MJW]

Thanks guys, I, m struggling to find a bap around 1793 ish, I, ll try variations on surname

Also, you should be aware that not everyone was baptised as a baby or young child, they might be baptised much later. So, it's worth checking later years.
   
I used to transcribe old parish records, and I've seen many examples of later baptisms - including where several siblings of varying ages (from babies to 10/11 years old, sometimes older) were baptised together in a "batch".  Also, adults baptised carried shortly before they married.

[Jebber]

Just to add another dimension, I have two sister who were not baptised until several years after their marriage, all their siblings were baptised as babies. So don’t expect any had and fast rule.

[Geoff-E]

My mam had a "set" of four cousins... the girls were bapped as RC and the boys as C of E.

[Shrop63]

Do you want to post the details of who you are looking for.

Yes a Leonard Ellis, around 1793ish around Wellington Shropshire, I have his marriage but no bap