Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Starting to feel at home
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    31

    Default Churches in Birmingham, St Martin, St Philips

    Trying to decide if a family would have had children baptised in both of these churches and if so why. They are about .5 miles apart.
    Records for the children of a Thomas and Hannah Davis, show Sarah baptised at St Martins 1760, Mary baptised St Philips 1767, William baptised St Martins 1770 and another William baptised at St Philips 1773.
    I have not found a death record for the first William.
    It is possible that there are 2 families both with parents named Thomas and Hannah. They were clandestine Catholics

  2. #2
    Valued member of Brit-Gen
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    reading
    Posts
    293

    Default

    You are wrong to say the two churches are 5 miles apart. Looking on google maps I would say they are about 800metres apart, both in the centre of Birmingham .

  3. #3
    Starting to feel at home
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikejee View Post
    You are wrong to say the two churches are 5 miles apart. Looking on google maps I would say they are about 800metres apart, both in the centre of Birmingham .
    My post says .5 miles! That is half a mile!

  4. #4
    Reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    16,792

    Default

    You say "children baptised in both of these churches" but you show Sarah, Mary and William as having been baptised at one or the other church, not at both.

    The William baptised on 19 Jan 1773 at St Philip is shown as the son of Hannah Davis - not of Thomas and Hannah. That form of words usually implies that the mother wasn't married and suggests that this was a completely different William.

    Swapping between churches wasn't unusual, particularly when they were so close.

  5. #5
    Starting to feel at home
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Thanks, misleading choice of words on my part, I meant the parents had used both of the local churches for their children's baptisms, not that the children were baptised twice. I should have noticed no father on the second William baptism.
    It was the use of two churches that I wondered about.
    Somewhere I have seen a reference about a rule perhaps unofficial that said you were supposed to use your 'parish' church for baptisms, marriages and burials except when there was a regional head office church.
    Most of my ancestors lived in south Staffordshire, they were baptised and buried in the areas where the family lived but all the marriages seem to take place at St. Peter's Collegiate Church in Wolverhampton.
    I remember being told as a child that going to mass at the closest church-we could walk there- was frowned upon, that we should go to the 'parish' church which was further away and required a bus or a car.

  6. #6
    Reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    16,792

    Default

    St Martin was the ancient parish church. When St Philip was built, the parish was carved out of the old St Martin parish. The churches were so close that I suspect you would find that many families spread their baptisms around. I wouldn't worry about it - it's not very unusual behaviour.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: