I was lead to believe that all, children had to be baptized by LAW pre 1837. If they were not by a certain passage of time the parish church could fine them. ---------------------------------------- > From: jeangrahame@live.fr > To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com > Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:52:26 +0200 > Subject: [B&S] FW: Poor Law TNA Documents On-Line > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is another point of course - the baptismal certificate was almost the only proof of identity. If people needed to prove their existence, poor law rules for example, proof of residence in a certain parish to claim relief - maybe a late baptism in order to get married. And various other possibilities. My mother, b. 1919 was not baptised because her father, having seen all sorts of horrors in the trenches - said she could make her own mind up about religion ( and incidentally, vaccination - she was jabbed as an emergency aged 3 and remembered being chased by a doctor with a large needle!) > > > > In 1940, about to marry, she could not provide proof of a baptism - it had not happened - so she was baptised in Dec, married in Jan 1941, and confirmed in March - Anglican. The rest of the family were Presbyterian some were Congregationalists. > > > > Jean > > > > > > > From: mike.gould@ndirect.co.uk > > > To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com > > > Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:04:42 +0100 > > > Subject: Re: [B&S] Poor Law TNA Documents On-Line > > > > > > > > > Hi Marjorie, > > > > > > I hadn't realised that it was actually against church rules to charge a fee > > > for baptisms. Interesting. As you say, it was probably a case of the vicar > > > bringing pressure to bear to get all the unbaptised children done. It would > > > be interesting to look at the register and see whether the dates correspond > > > to a new incumbent who is more strict about such things than his > > > predecessor. Or perhaps even a new Bishop sending out instructions to his > > > subordinates to "get their acts together" and get their flock baptised. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com > > > [mailto:bristol_and_somerset-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Art & > > > Marjorie Keates > > > Sent: 26 October 2010 12:41 > > > To: bristol_and_somerset@rootsweb.com > > > Subject: Re: [B&S] Poor Law TNA Documents On-Line > > > > > > Hi Mike > > > > > > I looked up Henry and his family to refresh my memory. > > > > > > 12 children in the family. > > > First 5 were baptised, didn't find a baptism for the 6th. Henry, the 7th, > > > baptised when he was 5, and at least 3 years before he entered the > > > workhouse. > > > Didn't find any baptisms for next 4, the 12th born in May 1845, baptised in > > > July and buried in Jan...the same day as her father who died when 'cliff > > > fell on him at the old works'. Ruth was 8 months and ' buried in the same > > > coffin with her father.' > > > Interesting little notes you find when reading the actual register. > > > > > > The mother was buried the day the 12th child, Ruth, was baptised. > > > > > > I expect that Henry and the now youngest child Nicholas entered the work > > > house after their father's death. > > > > > > Using the TNA site you told us about I found a reference in a letter dated > > > 18 Feb 1852 to Nicholas Latcham age 10 fit for employment. > > > > > > An unexpected mention of Nicholas > > > > > > Thank you again for mention of the TNA site. > > > > > > By the way there has been a lenghty discussion on another group re baptisms > > > and fees. The vicar was not supposed to charge for a baptism. Perhaps some > > > did but it was against church rules. > > > Perhaps some families just didn't really care whether or not their children > > > were baptised and every now and then would be prodded into taking them to > > > church and having any unbaptised children 'done'. > > > > > > Best wishes > > > Marjorie > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to BRISTOL_AND_SOMERSET-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:06:07 +0100, Lynne Charles <lynnecharles7@hotmail.com> wrote: > I was lead to believe that all, children had to be baptized by LAW pre > 1837. If they were not by a certain passage of time the parish church > could fine them. I haven't heard of that, but I read today that in 1911 the penalty was £2 if a birth wasn't registered within 42 days. Josephine -- Josephine Jeremiah www.ianandjo.dsl.pipex.com