From birth to baptism - how long?

[Sheleen]

Is there any law concerning how long one would be allowed to wait between birth and christening - in specific regard to the pre-1837 parish registers. I'm asking only because I am trying to figure out if I have found an ancestor listed at the LDS IGI index, and the baptism is some four-plus years after what I believe the birth to be.

[Guy Etchells]

Yes, there is one specific requirement but even this was not always abided by.
It had to be between the birth and death of the person being baptised. ;)

The normal practice tended to be soon after birth (within four weeks) but there are many many instances of there being years between birth & baptism. Some were baptised at the same time as a later sibling, some just before marriage some just after the death of a parent or sibling.
Cheers
Guy

[Geoffers]

No Law concerning the period - and not everyone was christened.

In records I've looked at in detail, pre-19th century baptisms tend to be soon after birth. The introduction of the 1783 Stamp Act seems to have affected baptisms and the effect in my own county of interest (Norfolk) lasted long after the Act had been repealed.

In the 19th century it is not uncommon to have families baptising children in a 'job lot'. After the introducton of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, some workhouses (e.g. Buxton, Norfolk) had the children in their care baptised en masse, apparantly following the pinciple that it was better to be done twice than not at all.

My gt-gt-grandfather's sister was baptised in 1865 at the age of 16 and I've seen entries where a register notes that a person was baptised the day before he died, in one case the chap was 79 and the register does record his parents names.

If you have an age from a census, don't forget that ages were often treated quite flexibly as far as the returns, people adding or subtracting years according to their needs.

Baptism at age 4 years is not unusual

Geoffers

[Geoffers]

Yes, there is one specific requirement but even this was not always abided by. It had to be between the birth and death of the person being baptised.
I stand corrected!! But I have seen entries where the person being baptised cut things a bit fine. Frettenham registers note one elderly chap being baptised in the morning and popping his clogs in the afternoon.

Geoffers

[Fulhamster]

Do the Mormons still retro-baptise people? (And I don't mean t'other end, Geoffers!)

[Guy Etchells]

I think you will find they never have done. ;)

What is offered is baptism by proxy - This is where a living person stands in in place of the deceased. The Church is of the opinion that the deceased person is in the best position to accept or decline this ordinance.
Cheers
Guy

[Fulhamster]

I think you will find they never have done. ;)

What is offered is baptism by proxy - This is where a living person stands in in place of the deceased. The Church is of the opinion that the deceased person is in the best position to accept or decline this ordinance.
Cheers
Guy
Thanks for that Guy! Strange lot really!

[joette]

No we are not! Just normal people with different beliefs one of which that families are eternal! We offer the dead the same chance as the living not strange at all! OK I admit it sounds weird but honestly it is a sincerely held belief that the Dead should have the chance to be baptised same as the living.

[Fulhamster]

No we are not! Just normal people with different beliefs one of which that families are eternal! We offer the dead the same chance as the living not strange at all! OK I admit it sounds weird but honestly it is a sincerely held belief that the Dead should have the chance to be baptised same as the living.Hi Joette!
No offense meant!:) To be strange doesn't necessarily mean 'bad'. Do the Dead (through their proxy) ever decline to be baptised? And, do only 'Christian' dead get the same chance? I ask these questions seriously as I would have thought that if people wanted to get baptised they would have done so whilst still with us. To offer baptism to non-Christians would seem to me to be offensive to their previous beliefs. I had never thought about it before, it does raise some interesting points.

[Guy Etchells]

Why should an offer ever be offensive? It is an option that may be acted upon or rejected at will.
As to baptism what choice does a baby have they cannot choose to accept or reject baptism that choice is made for them, should they not be given a later option?
What about those who were born to parents who did not consider religion, they might not have been given the option of baptism while alive?
It is not always a concious decision not to be baptised.
Cheers
Guy

[HelenVSmith]

Whetehr a person was baptised in th epast was often dependent on where they lived. It was more likely you would baptise a child if you lived in a small village where evryone knew everyone (unless you detested the vicar). It can be very different if you live in a large town, as no-one knows or really cares.

Another reason was how poor you may be, it was a custom in many places to offer refreshments on baptism day. I can't remember for which parish it was but in the history of the parish the Reverend said he had a few days each year where he put on refreshemnts and had mass baptisms and the records sustained this, 20 or so from what I can remember.

A time when baptism occurred quickly was if the child was sickly and it amy often be baptised by the person delivering the child just in case it shuffled off this mortal coil before it could go to Church.

Then you have a family who moved around a lot who might decide when their youngest is born that it is time to also baptise any of the others that have not been done. I have a number of cases of this in the transcriptions for rural Kent parishes.

If freedom of choice comes into it how many babies/children know enough to state they accept the baptism into a faith that as adults they may reject? Some groups only accept adult baptisms for this reason.

Helen
It also depends how religious the parents were. This of course still occurs today.

[Mythology]

And, just as a little tailpiece to this, which somebody is going to be rather pleased about when I ring them later ...

Today I was at Westminster Archives, looking for a Charles Robert Evors, born about 1825 and gives a nice precise birthplace of "Lower Grosvenor Place" on the census. His two younger sisters were where expected, in the St George Hanover Square register, but not him. St Peter Palace Street starts 1822, so tried that, no luck there either, but he turned up in St Margaret Westminster. Lord knows why they wandered down there, the baptism record has the "Lower Grosvenor Place" address, so he's not muddled anything, just had parents who decided to give me the runaround a bit.

OK - nothing really out of the ordinary there, at least it's in approximately the same neck of the woods, but ...

A friend has on a marriage record an illegitimate Mary Harvey who says her father is Hart Logan and would be born Hammersmith about 1800-1805ish. No trace of her in the Hammersmith PR or nearby, so no idea who her mother was, and she'd basically given up on her.
While trundling through St George Hanover Square in the 20s and 30s looking for my Evors crowd today, what did I come across on the way?
An 1831 baptism for Mary, daughter of Hart Logan and Mary Hervey of Hammersmith - with a birthdate of 4 November 1803. :)

The St Geo H Sq register for the 1830s is not *exactly* the first place you'd think of looking, is it? :D