"CHURCHING OF WOMEN: A ceremony of thanksgiving for a safe delivery performed at the altar rails after the baptism of a child. Was grossly associated with superstition and believed (erroneously) to be a rite of purification. Unmarried mothers were not permitted to be Churched". So far as I know the ceremony has never been abolished, just in less demand these days. In holier days, much to the frustration of modern genealogists, dates of birth seem to have been regarded as an accident of conception /delivery, and thus of little interest legally or civilly. Baptism, on the other hand, was the real 'birth', and the preferred date to record in bibles. In the 16th and 17th century, with neonatal death already high, it must have been a hazardous affair; unheated churches, cold stone fonts, and (though the practice was becoming obsolete) sometimes total immersion in cold water. The date it was done therefore was important; too early, and you might kill the babe from pneumonia, too late and it might die with soul unsaved. A common compromise seems to have been seven days after birth. (I'd be much obliged if anyone can add to this line of discussion, confirming or refuting). Damnation was worse than death. Now William Shaksper, thought by some to be a candidate for the authorship of the ''Shakespeare" plays, was baptised on 26th april 1564. The world demands a birthdate, so they invented one - 23rd april. St. George's Day, and the same date he died. But there is no reason whatever why it shouldn't have been the more likely 19th april. In fact, there is a hint in one of the plays (Winters' Tale) that it was. But that's another story! I've always regretted the abolition in Victorian times of the Gunpowder Treason church service, Happy Restoration of Charles II, etc. John Barton ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Barlow" <barlow@candw.ky> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 5:59 PM Subject: [OEL] baptisms by midwives > Googling for details of the churching ("purification" - yes, really!) of women after childbirth*** I came across a report that in 17th-Century England - or maybe Britain - midwives had "quasi-clerical" authority to baptize newly born babies if they seemed about to die. Would such baptisms have been recorded in the Parish Registers? And, if the babies lived would they have been obliged to be baptized again in church? If there was no such obligation, and no other recording, that might explain why some baptisms are missing. Am I on the right track here? > > *** When was churching abolished in the civilised world, by the way? I seem to recall reading that the Orthodox Churches still observe the practice: could that be correct? Seems a bit primitive, in these days of (Western) respect for women. > > Gordon Barlow > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

Date of baptism > seems to have been seven days after birth. This varied very much from place to place, In towns, it was obviously wiser to do it fast, before the baby caught whatever fever was going, and 3-4 days is found in London. In healthier country areas, 3 weeks has worked out to be more usual, with four weeks or a full month in other places/ Some clergy got sniffy if it was delayed much longer- 'this child above a quarter yr old' =-for instance. The gentry often did delay longer, to gather the clans together, but this is rarely commented on adversely. On the other hand, in some areas, the gentry, and then the rich farmers, tended to send for the clergyman to do a private baptism, as a matter of habit, not need, within a week or so of birth, then have a public do a few months later. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society