"the father ... told the vicar that he disagreed with the name. I hadn't come across this situation before" Not something I've ever seen either but it makes intriguing sense - thanks for sharing it as a possible explanation for unexplained children. "as children are only allowed to be baptised once" Well - I guess in theory yes, though I'd prefer to say that they only need to be baptised once. However, in practice I've seen it happen quite often - the classic case is once in an Anglican church, plus once in a non-conformist chapel. I've seen that in either order. I've also got double baptisms for one child in a CofE church. I suspect that in some cases the first is simply a "private" baptism that wasn't marked as such, with the 2nd being the follow-up public acceptance rather than a full baptism. But I've also seen a child baptised once then, several years later, baptised again with their siblings in a job-lot "catch-up" baptism. Presumably the parents weren't quite sure whether their elder child had been baptised and an eager curate just booked the lot in! (The ages in later census make it clear it really is the same child, not a 2nd child with the same name). Adrian B

A number of my ancestors in one family were baptized soon after their births. The vicar left and a new one came and all the children were baptized again on the same day. In the register there are whole blocks of such family christenings under the new vicar. Mike in Droitwich

Thanks Adrian Like you, I had come across various reasons for "2nd baptisms" but this one was new to me so I thought it was worth sharing. Liz www.btinternet.com/~e.newbery OPC for Street, Somerset ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian B" <abruce@madasafish.com> To: <bristol_and_district@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 12:09 PM Subject: Re: [B&D] Two baptisms > > "the father ... told the vicar that he disagreed with the name. I hadn't > come across this situation before" > Not something I've ever seen either but it makes intriguing sense - thanks > for sharing it as a possible explanation for unexplained children. > > "as children are only allowed to be baptised once" > Well - I guess in theory yes, though I'd prefer to say that they only need > to be baptised once. However, in practice I've seen it happen quite > often - > the classic case is once in an Anglican church, plus once in a > non-conformist chapel. I've seen that in either order. I've also got > double > baptisms for one child in a CofE church. I suspect that in some cases the > first is simply a "private" baptism that wasn't marked as such, with the > 2nd > being the follow-up public acceptance rather than a full baptism. > > But I've also seen a child baptised once then, several years later, > baptised > again with their siblings in a job-lot "catch-up" baptism. Presumably the > parents weren't quite sure whether their elder child had been baptised and > an eager curate just booked the lot in! (The ages in later census make it > clear it really is the same child, not a 2nd child with the same name). > > Adrian B > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > BRISTOL_AND_DISTRICT-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message >

There are a series of well known multiple baptisms for the children of travelling folk. In the past parish priests often used to give the parents of babies that they baptised a small gift of money to encourge them...:-) This led to travellers taking advantage (in all senses) of such offers and having the same baby baptised multiple times in different parishes on their travels... I read a very interesting article on research into this sometime ago, but I cannot remember where, and I've tried searching on the Internet with no luck. Polly

The 'conventional wisdom' is that children cannot be baptised twice. It is certainly true that sickly children were sometimes baptised privately, and sometimes baptised 'again'. I wonder whether the first baptism being done hurriedly, in case the poor infant doesn't survive, is perhaps not a full baptism and more of a blessing with prayers for his/her survival, perhaps without godparents present. The later baptism being a 'proper' baptism with godparents and a proper introduction to the church and congregation. Do we have a vicar or church warden on the list who can shed some light on this? Regards, Geoff One Name Study of WEDMORE worldwide and linked interests in BRISON, DUCK, POLE, TOLSON and One Name Study of PUCKLE, SCARNELL and SCUFFHAM in the UK. http://www.wedmore.org.uk

Adrian B wrote: > However, in practice I've seen it happen quite often - > the classic case is once in an Anglican church, plus once in a > non-conformist chapel. I've seen that in either order. This would be quite normal where someone changed from CoE to non con, or vice versa, to be baptised into their new church. I wonder if, when a family moved to a different parish, the children were baptised again because they had gone to a "new church" > But I've also seen a child baptised once then, several years later, baptised > again with their siblings in a job-lot "catch-up" baptism. Presumably the > parents weren't quite sure whether their elder child had been baptised and > an eager curate just booked the lot in! (The ages in later census make it > clear it really is the same child, not a 2nd child with the same name). That probably happened a lot more than we realise :)) -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton and Greinton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk