In 1804 (or at any other time) a child could be baptised at any Church of England church whether or not its parents were married - for it was the CHILD, not its parents, that was being Entered in the Congregation. It might well - depending on the level of Charity of the Baptiser, and the level of Contrition of the Unwed Mother - be given a Derogatory Label, such as (in order of the Baptiser's view on the seriousness of the mother's sin) Bastard Base Born Natural Child or even without comment (but that was rare). Some might add "widow" against the mother's name - but if the child had a surname-looking Middle Name, then that would still give sufficient doubt. But the lack of parents' marriage wasn't a bar to a baptism - although baptism (then, as now) was NOT a Legal Requirement. But many Sects (including the CofE) held that it was a necessary pre-requisite should the child wish later to be confirmed or married under the sect's rules. HTH Gus ----- Original Message ----- From: JOHN RICHARDSON <jjminfiek@ntlworld.com> To: <ENG-WORCESTER-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 3:36 PM Subject: [WOR] marriage > Hello > > Quick question for someone *in the know* about these things. > > In the year 1804; could a child have been baptised in a C of E church in Lower Mitton, without the parents being married? > > John Richardson > Cambs > > > ==== ENG-WORCESTER Mailing List ==== > Transcribers wanted for Worcestershire FreeREG > for more information see http://freereg.rootsweb.com > UK Census on-line > http://freecen.rootsweb.com/ > http://www.worcestershiresurnames.co.uk/ > >