Were both Parents at baptism?

[Stewart R]

I have found a baptism entry (1857) that has both parents names included, however i believe the father was not present. My obvious question is to ask if he was required to be there, to be included? His name does appear second (underneath the mothers name)if of any significance.

Stewart

[CaroleW]

What makes you believe he wasn't there?  Is it because his name is below the mothers name?  Was the child illegitimate

Is his name on the child's birth cert

[Milliepede]

Do the mother and father have different surnames? 

[Stewart R]

The child was born in 1855, but by the time of the Baptism in 1857 the father had been posted to Plymouth with the Cheshire Militia, and had actually entered into a bigamous marriage. I'm pretty sure he wasn't arround at the time of birth either. The position of his name on the register just seemed of interest in comparison with the other entries on the page. Unfortunately I don't have the B/Cert.
Both the parents are registered with the same surname.

Thank you for your interest

Stewart

[martin hooper]

I have seen this sort of thing. Along the lines of 'Mary daughter of Sarah and John Smith'. All other entries having the father's name first. I've supposed that the child was illegitimate but if that is the case then why not state the mother's surname?

It's an odd one for sure.

Martin

[cockney rebel]

I have in my tree a baptism (at 3 weeks old) where the husband of the mother is named as father, although he had died 3 years previous.
I have seen several baptisms where the child is illegitimate but the vicar/curate has named the father as a sort of "name and shame" approach.
You'll probably never know for sure, but if the mother was now alone then the baby was perhaps baptised in order to receive some help from the parish ?
Rebel

[Wexflyer]

I have found a baptism entry (1857) that has both parents names included, however i believe the father was not present. My obvious question is to ask if he was required to be there, to be included? His name does appear second (underneath the mothers name)if of any significance.

Stewart

No, father does not need to be present.

[Stewart R]

That sounds pretty conclusive Wexflyer, thankyou.

Stewart

[JenB]

I have found a baptism entry (1857) that has both parents names included, however i believe the father was not present. My obvious question is to ask if he was required to be there, to be included? His name does appear second (underneath the mothers name)if of any significance.

Stewart

No, father does not need to be present.

Wexflyer is right, the baptism entry simply shows the names of the parents as reported to the person who wrote up the record. It doesn’t record whether or not they were both present.
I’ve seen a baptism entry giving the names of both parents when I know quite definitely that the father was already deceased.