Baby baptised twice in C18th
North East Quine
Purgatory Host
I have come across a curiosity in our parish records.
In 1753 a baby, John, was born after the death of its father, William.
Baby John was baptised, presumably within a week of its birth, as was the custom. The witnesses were the baby's paternal grandfather, George, and someone I think was the baby's paternal great-grandfather. At any rate, he was a relative with the same surname.
Nine days later the baby was re-baptised in the church in the neighbouring parish. This time he was baptised John-William. The paternal grandfather, George, stood as sponsor, and the witnesses were the man I think was great-grandfather and, interestingly, the man who, twelve months later, became the widow's second husband and the baby's step-father.
Why two baptisms? I don't think the inclusion or exclusion of a middle name would have made any difference. Did a baptism, in the absence of the deceased father, require a man to stand in his stead, thus the paternal grandfather standing as sponsor second time round?
If the first baptism was ineffective, why not re-baptise in the same parish? The neighbouring parish church is 5.5 miles away by road now; there may have been a track which was shorter then, but it must have been at least an eight mile round trip with a baby unlikely to have been more than a fortnight old, in early October.
In 1753 a baby, John, was born after the death of its father, William.
Baby John was baptised, presumably within a week of its birth, as was the custom. The witnesses were the baby's paternal grandfather, George, and someone I think was the baby's paternal great-grandfather. At any rate, he was a relative with the same surname.
Nine days later the baby was re-baptised in the church in the neighbouring parish. This time he was baptised John-William. The paternal grandfather, George, stood as sponsor, and the witnesses were the man I think was great-grandfather and, interestingly, the man who, twelve months later, became the widow's second husband and the baby's step-father.
Why two baptisms? I don't think the inclusion or exclusion of a middle name would have made any difference. Did a baptism, in the absence of the deceased father, require a man to stand in his stead, thus the paternal grandfather standing as sponsor second time round?
If the first baptism was ineffective, why not re-baptise in the same parish? The neighbouring parish church is 5.5 miles away by road now; there may have been a track which was shorter then, but it must have been at least an eight mile round trip with a baby unlikely to have been more than a fortnight old, in early October.
Comments
I've come across a few cases of that, but never of the second being in another parish (of course, this could be because I wasn't looking for them). Also, nine days seems a bit short from being at death's door to fit to lug five miles cross-country in autumn.
I could try the Tay Valley Family History Society FB page for you? Message me further details if you want.
If the first baptism was effective, why the second? It's not as though one was organised by the father's side and the second by the mother's. Both the witnesses at the first attended the second - one as Sponsor, one as witness.
I am not sure whether this happened in 17th Century, I do know it happened at least on one occassion mid 20th Century.
Also, both parents families lived in the first parish. There may have been wider family in the neighbouring parish, but the grandparents, for example, lived in the first parish.
Not quite true. They would be taken to church for a public welcoming/reception but without the actual baptism. This is what the rubric says:
” If the person lives, they shall afterwards come to church, or be brought to church, and the service for Holy Baptism followed, except that the Signing with the Cross, the Prayer over the Water and the Baptism are omitted.”
If it had been the other way round - if the entry in neighbouring parish was first - I might have wondered if for some reason (birth happened away from home?) the baby had been baptised there, and their own parish had simply noted the fact of baptism in their own records, missing out the middle name, and the grandfather standing as Sponsor.
Baby John / John-William died in 1820, so if he was a sickly baby, he clearly went on to thrive.
So if I had to guess about the OP, someone either had serious doubts about the first rite, and/or was able to convince the second church that there were grounds for concern. I can't explain the trip to another congregation that way, though, unless the thing causing concern was an ongoing problem in the first congregation--for example, the minister there had lost his ever-loving mind and was doing freaky things, and there was every reason to suspect he'd do it the second time as well--and the disciplinary authorities hadn't yet stepped in. (I wonder if there were other similar cases in the records about the same time?)
No matter, I don't think God would mind infants receiving an extra dose of water.
Originally posted by @Lamb Chopped
unless the thing causing concern was an ongoing problem in the first congregation--for example, the minister there had lost his ever-loving mind and was doing freaky things, and there was every reason to suspect he'd do it the second time as well
I really don't think so.
Looking through the records, the minister was ill in July, and still not back to full health by September. Some of the sermons were preached by probationers. But on the date of the first baptism (24 Sept) the minister of a neighbouring parish was providing cover. And even if there was an issue with the parish minister's health and availability, the church in the parish to the south is only 2.5 miles away, on the same side of the river, and connected by a road which was good even then.
Apart from that, everything seems normal. There was a complaint in Jan 1754 that "those who attempted to sing in divine service did it in a very disagreeable and inharmonious manner" ...because of ... "none attempting to sing any but the Tenor part " and I guess if that was a recorded complaint in Jan 1754, the rumbles of discontent had started by Sept 1753, but I can't see that impacting on a baptism.
What does 'MWARP' stand for?
I did wonder if it was definitely the same baby, but (let us call the child John McSmith) there can't be two John McSmiths born at about the same time, in the same parish, both of whom are the posthumous child of a William McSmith, and both of whom have their baptisms witnessed by George McSmith and William McSmith, sr.
(The second baptism in Parish B states that the family is from Parish A)
It’s the sound of a klaxon warning of a dangerous extrapolation.
There were quite a few McSmiths in the parish. A William McSmith was an elder of the church from 1713 until his death in 1745. He was replaced as elder by "William McSmith, senior" I assume "William McSmith, senior" was the same "William McSmith, senior" who witnessed both baptisms.
It makes no sense for an elder of the church in Parish A to go to the church in Parish B for a second baptism.
Early September. The widow is in Parish B, visiting a friend or relative, when she goes into labour. The baby is born, word is sent to her late husband's family, who arrive and baby John-William is baptised, with his paternal grandfather standing in for his late father, plus two witnesses.
The widow recovers from the birth and returns home to Parish A . The minister offers to baptise the baby, and she says that he is already baptised. As the family belong to Parish A, the baptism is entered into Parish A's register of baptisms on 24 September.
In early October the Parish B minister notices that there is no record of the baptism in Parish B. The clerk says that he didn't record it because the McSmiths belong to Parish A. The minister says that as the baptism was carried out in Parish B it has to be recorded in Parish B. And so, on 3 October, the baptism is recorded in Parish B's register of baptisms.
Possible?
Nick Tamen and BroJames are correct, it's an onomatopeic for a klaxon or similar alarm.
While I'm here, I think your posited solution looks plausible, @North East Quine. Unless you find a reason in the church rubric that this would not have been allowed, it may be your best explanation this side of an ouija board.