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 >People think of the Workhouse as a dreadful place, but for some members of >the community, it did provide a useful service. Henry would have been fed >and possibly clothed by the Workhouse - it wasn't necessarily such a bad >life. The intent was to make it a bad place for those who could work but >didn't choose to. The (local) government wanted to crack down on the >scroungers - nothing changes, does it ! But Henry and others would receive >more sympathetic treatment. > >I don't believe there was any "official" requirement for inmates to be >baptised as a condition of admission, but local vicars, or perhaps the >Workhouse Master, may have excerted pressure for it to happen. As to why >the parents hadn't baptised him at birth, I can only speculate. Perhaps >they thought he wouldn't survive beyond infancy and couldn't afford the cost >of a baptism. Was he baptised at the same time as one of his siblings ? >That often happened, since vicars could do a "two for the price of one" >deal. > >Best wishes, > >Mike

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