Anne Chambers wrote: > I don't agree - if you look at the page, the only years that are > written out are *not* 1802. It would seem that if a year is not > stated, then it must be 1802....they cannot all be baptisms of > children born before 1802. Hallo I did look at the page. The date on the left is the date of baptism. The date on the right is the date of birth. If the date on the right, by your reckoning, is November 21 1802, then Harriot was baptised before she was born. This would not be possible. If the date was the 21st of the previous month, then the vicar would have written in "February". It is left blank. I have seen many registers where only the part of the date that is different has been written in. Sometimes there is "do" or ditto mark under to year or month or date. More often there is nothing there. If the vicar was new to the parish it is possible he checked up to see if there were any unbaptised children. If the parents didn't know or couldn't remember or couldn't prove their child had been baptised or the previous vicar hadn't baptised or recorded the baptisms, the vicar would appear to have insisted on baptising them again with the words like "if this child has not previously been baptised . . . ". I'm sure someone will know the exact wording. Judy Lester has said this book is a bishop's transcript. Perhaps the original register from which the transcrip was made would be clearer. Connie in London