Any idea why?

[Findem]

Hi,

Wondering if anyone can offer explanations regarding why the following first two children of Richard & Mary Pudney were baptised in such a way.

Mary bap 9 May 1659 at Terling then bap 5 Jun 1659 at Fairstead, buried 1 Jul 1659 at Terling.

Mary bap 12 Jul 1660 at Fairstead then bap 12 Jan 1661 at Terling.

The Fairstead PR for both Marys recorded that the parents were of Terling, the next five children were baptised solely at Terling.

If anyone is researching this family and has found the marriage of Richard Pudney and Mary I'd be very grateful for a heads up.

Regards.

[LittleMissP]

Hi, have you looked at the original parish records rather than transcriptions? Sometimes they have a 'p' after them which could denote that it was a private baptism. Often this occured soon after the birth if they thought the baby would not survive long. Obviously the situation sometimes changed and the baby 'got better', hence a baptism in the public church and community.

Paula

[LittleMissP]

Also consider that were they baptising in both the mother's and father's (original) parishes?

[Findem]

Hi LittleMissP,

Thanks for your ideas.

The entries did come from the fiche of the original PRs (many moons ago) and I don't think there was any mention of a private baptism but now you mention that possibility I will go into the online PRs and double check, I'll post the results.

As far as baptising the the two Marys in both parent parishes I originally discounted that theory because only the two Marys were baptised in Terling and Fairstead. Once again your having brought that possibility back to mind I'm now having second thoughts, I'll go into the Fairstead marriage register today and check again for the marriage of Richard & Mary, although even if Mary wasn't baptised or married in Fairstead she may have lived there I suppose, Richard was baptised in Terling in 1632.

Still open for suggestions if anyone can offer any other theories!

Regards.

[Findem]

Hi,

Rechecked the Fairstead and Terling Registers and there was no mention of either Mary Pudney being privately baptised.

The details for the first Mary are correct except that she was baptised 2 June not the 5th of June.

However concerning the second Mary Pudney I'm embarrassed to report an error. Mary was born at Terling 19 May 1660 but unlike the entry for the first Mary, the Terling entry did not also contain a baptism date. How I came up with a Terling baptism I have no idea at all, I have now checked thoroughly several years either side of 1659 and definitely no mention of a baptism at Terling.

Sorry for causing confusion.

Regards