Two Baptisms same person

[Ron Taylor]

Rather strange. I have Harriot Lutterloh daughter of Henry and Phillis
baptised 1 April 1773 St Giles in Fields and again April 15 St
Marylebone - given the names etc clearly the same person. There are no
explanatory annotations against either entry.

Any thoughts on this?

[Chris Dickinson]

Post by Ron Taylor
Rather strange. I have Harriot Lutterloh daughter of Henry and Phillis
baptised 1 April 1773 St Giles in Fields and again April 15 St
Marylebone - given the names etc clearly the same person. There are no
explanatory annotations against either entry.
Any thoughts on this?

Reading of Banns?

[Chris Dickinson]

Post by Chris Dickinson

Post by Ron Taylor
Rather strange. I have Harriot Lutterloh daughter of Henry and Phillis
baptised 1 April 1773 St Giles in Fields and again April 15 St
Marylebone - given the names etc clearly the same person. There are no
explanatory annotations against either entry.
Any thoughts on this?

Reading of Banns?

Ha, ignore that comment! My head misread marriage.

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Chris Dickinson

Post by Chris Dickinson

Post by Ron Taylor
Rather strange. I have Harriot Lutterloh daughter of Henry and Phillis
baptised 1 April 1773 St Giles in Fields and again April 15 St
Marylebone - given the names etc clearly the same person. There are no
explanatory annotations against either entry.
Any thoughts on this?

Reading of Banns?

Ha, ignore that comment! My head misread marriage.

Parish churches of the individual parents?

[Richard Smith]

Post by Ron Taylor
Rather strange. I have Harriot Lutterloh daughter of Henry and Phillis
baptised 1 April 1773 St Giles in Fields and again April 15 St
Marylebone - given the names etc clearly the same person. There are no
explanatory annotations against either entry.
Any thoughts on this?

It's not that uncommon. Generally the first will have been a private
baptism carried out in the house very soon after birth because it was
thought likely the child might not live, and the second will have been a
public baptism or reception into church when the child was well enough
to be taken to church.

Richard

[Graeme Wall]

Post by Ron Taylor
Rather strange. I have Harriot Lutterloh daughter of Henry and Phillis
baptised 1 April 1773 St Giles in Fields and again April 15 St
Marylebone - given the names etc clearly the same person.  There are no
explanatory annotations against either entry.
Any thoughts on this?

It's not that uncommon.  Generally the first will have been a private
baptism carried out in the house very soon after birth because it was
thought likely the child might not live, and the second will have been a
public baptism or reception into church when the child was well enough
to be taken to church.

But would a private baptism be entered in church records?

[Chris Dickinson]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Ron Taylor
Rather strange. I have Harriot Lutterloh daughter of Henry and Phillis
baptised 1 April 1773 St Giles in Fields and again April 15 St
Marylebone - given the names etc clearly the same person.  There are no
explanatory annotations against either entry.
Any thoughts on this?

It's not that uncommon.  Generally the first will have been a private
baptism carried out in the house very soon after birth because it was
thought likely the child might not live, and the second will have been a
public baptism or reception into church when the child was well enough
to be taken to church.

But would a private baptism be entered in church records?

Quite common to see priv. marked, at least in rural parishes.

[Ron Taylor]

Post by Chris Dickinson

Post by Graeme Wall
But would a private baptism be entered in church records?

Quite common to see priv. marked, at least in rural parishes.

Yes. I baptised a road accident victim who didn't make it (any baptised
person can do this "if you are not already baptised I baptised you etc etc"
When I mentioned to ur Anglican priest he entered it in the register.

[Richard Smith]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Ron Taylor
Rather strange. I have Harriot Lutterloh daughter of Henry and Phillis
baptised 1 April 1773 St Giles in Fields and again April 15 St
Marylebone - given the names etc clearly the same person. There are no
explanatory annotations against either entry.
Any thoughts on this?

It's not that uncommon. Generally the first will have been a private
baptism carried out in the house very soon after birth because it was
thought likely the child might not live, and the second will have been a
public baptism or reception into church when the child was well enough
to be taken to church.

But would a private baptism be entered in church records?

Yes, they frequently are. Sometimes they are noted as a private
baptism, and sometimes you have to infer it from a double baptism as you
have here. I'm sure quite a few baptisms which were followed a few days
later by a burial of the infant were also private baptisms, but we can
never be certain about any specific case.

Richard

[Chris Dickinson]

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Richard Smith

Post by Ron Taylor
Rather strange. I have Harriot Lutterloh daughter of Henry and Phillis
baptised 1 April 1773 St Giles in Fields and again April 15 St
Marylebone - given the names etc clearly the same person. There are no
explanatory annotations against either entry.
Any thoughts on this?

It's not that uncommon. Generally the first will have been a private
baptism carried out in the house very soon after birth because it was
thought likely the child might not live, and the second will have been a
public baptism or reception into church when the child was well enough
to be taken to church.

But would a private baptism be entered in church records?

Yes, they frequently are. Sometimes they are noted as a private
baptism, and sometimes you have to infer it from a double baptism as you
have here. I'm sure quite a few baptisms which were followed a few days
later by a burial of the infant were also private baptisms, but we can
never be certain about any specific case.
Richard

Perhaps it shoould be pointed out that not all private baptisms were done because the infant was sickly; indeed, in some circumstances only a minority of
private baptisms could have been done for that reason. There are other considerations: for instance, a curate or rector seeking a boost in income, or the church being in bad condition, or the weather making a home baptism preferable.

I was thinking earlier of a potential different reason (that I haven't considered before). Sociability. The rural area that I study had a high number of Quakers - it was unusual for them to be so segregated that a hamlet would not include an Anglican family. A Quaker who might have refused to go into a steeplehouse might well have been prepared to attend a private baptism.

Chris

[Ron Taylor]

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Ron Taylor
Rather strange. I have Harriot Lutterloh daughter of Henry and Phillis
baptised 1 April 1773 St Giles in Fields and again April 15 St
Marylebone - given the names etc clearly the same person.  There are no
explanatory annotations against either entry.
Any thoughts on this?

It's not that uncommon.  Generally the first will have been a private
baptism carried out in the house very soon after birth because it was
thought likely the child might not live, and the second will have been
a public baptism or reception into church when the child was well
enough to be taken to church.

But would a private baptism be entered in church records?

Thx. On reflection you may well be right. Birth was on 30 March, first
baptism 1 April so sickness and danger of death seems very possible

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Ron Taylor

Post by Graeme Wall

Post by Ron Taylor
Rather strange. I have Harriot Lutterloh daughter of Henry and Phillis
baptised 1 April 1773 St Giles in Fields and again April 15 St
Marylebone - given the names etc clearly the same person.  There are no
explanatory annotations against either entry.
Any thoughts on this?

It's not that uncommon.  Generally the first will have been a private
baptism carried out in the house very soon after birth because it was
thought likely the child might not live, and the second will have been
a public baptism or reception into church when the child was well
enough to be taken to church.

But would a private baptism be entered in church records?

Thx. On reflection you may well be right. Birth was on 30 March, first
baptism 1 April so sickness and danger of death seems very possible

Let's not rule out the possibility of a mistake: registrars are
human,and the registrar in this case may have failed to notice that the
baptism was already listed.

[cecilia]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:39:41 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ron Taylor
Rather strange. I have Harriot Lutterloh daughter of Henry and Phillis
baptised 1 April 1773 St Giles in Fields and again April 15 St
Marylebone - given the names etc clearly the same person.  There are no
explanatory annotations against either entry.

[...]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Let's not rule out the possibility of a mistake: registrars are
human,and the registrar in this case may have failed to notice that the
baptism was already listed.

Different parishes - different clerks

Anecdotes follow
:
1.
Change of parish:
three of my great-great-grandfather's children died mid 19C as
neo-nates. They were baptised in the City of London parish in which
they lived, and buried a day or so later in the family crypt of the
church of the neighbouring parish in which the family business was
based, The father's address was his house for the baptism, and his
father's house (his own business address) for the burial.

2.
Reasons for private baptism
A great-great-great-great-aunt's husband was a Naval officer. The
parrten of private and public baptisms for their children suggest to
me that the public baptisms were delayed until his next leave.

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:39:41 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Ron Taylor
Thx. On reflection you may well be right. Birth was on 30 March, first
baptism 1 April so sickness and danger of death seems very possible

Let's not rule out the possibility of a mistake: registrars are
human,and the registrar in this case may have failed to notice that the
baptism was already listed.

But if they were in different parishes there would be no way of
noticing.

I recently came across one where the first baptism was in London,
where the parents were living, and the second in Cheshire, where the
grandparents were living (and grandfather was the rector).

I suspect that the parents planned to have the child baptised by
grandpa, but because of illness had it privately baptised locally,
and then when they visited the grandparents had the public reception
there.

Incidentally, a warning.

I picked this up on FamilySearch, where transcriptions of both parish
records were available. But the person who had put this individual
into the FamilySearch family tree gave the place of residence and
place of birth of the child as Cheshire. A quick check in FreeBMD
showed that the birth was registered in London.

It seems that many of the transcribers have transcribed as though the
people who were baptised in the church lived in the church and were
even born in the churcgh, and listed the place of residence as the
church itself, rather than picking it up from the "Abode" field in the
register.

Occasionally on FamilySearch you can access a photo of the original
register entry, and this becomes apparent.

Normally the "Abode" field is the abode of the parents, and only
incidentally that of the child, but FamilySearch is not geared to link
them that way automatically.

A better assumption (though still an assumption, needing corroboratory
evidence) is that, before hospital births became customary, the
"Abode" field is a clue to where the child was born, and that, rather
than the church where the child was baptised, is more likely to be the
place of birth.

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 17:57:21 +0100, Graeme Wall

Post by Graeme Wall

It's not that uncommon.  Generally the first will have been a private
baptism carried out in the house very soon after birth because it was
thought likely the child might not live, and the second will have been a
public baptism or reception into church when the child was well enough
to be taken to church.

But would a private baptism be entered in church records?

Yes, though often marked "private" or just "PB".

[A Lefevre]

Post by Ron Taylor
Rather strange. I have Harriot Lutterloh daughter of Henry and Phillis
baptised 1 April 1773 St Giles in Fields and again April 15 St
Marylebone - given the names etc clearly the same person. There are no
explanatory annotations against either entry.
Any thoughts on this?

I have seen more than one of these. Took me a while to locate this
one:

Christchurch South Hackney:
Bapt 25 Mar 1900 Dorothy Lilian Lefever dau of John/Elizabeth
of 103 Weston St. Shoemaker

St Stephen Haggerston:
Bapt 28 Mar 1900 Dorothy Lilian Lefever dau of John/Elizabeth
of 103 Whiston St. Shoemaker

I see that 25th was a Sunday, perhaps at the celebration they
realised that great aunt Maud hadn't been invited and she's the one
with the money. Right, do it all again on Wednesday.

Alec Lefevre