Added to what Jeff said, perhaps a Baptism & later 'entered into the Church'. Was there a 'private' notation on the first one.?It's easy on a busy day to misread an entry, perhaps reading part of another or mixed up with another from a different entry. Also- guess what? people made some astonishing booboos. Some have to be seen to be believed. Wendy On Sunday, 22 March 2015, 6:52, MrJPTribe via <sfhg@rootsweb.com> wrote: In my family tree :- There was a child baptised twice at Saint Nicholas,  Brighton. And my son, who had medical problems at birth was baptised at  the hospital, and then later formerly at Church. So I would expect that  the child was poorly at birth and in risk of dying. However, it could be a transcription error, or the vicar was getting  senile.... Jeff SFGH 3646 In a message dated 21/03/2015  20:14:57 GMT Standard Time, sfhg@rootsweb.com writes: Can anyone explain why  a child might be listed twice on the frontis list of Baptisms for  Bolney? The guy in question is James Heasman s/o Henry Heasman and  Harriet. The first record states he was born on 10 Feb 1840; baptised 13  Feb 1840 The second record has him born two days later, on 12 Feb 1840 not  baptised until 10 May 1840. Would he have been baptised twice?  Was one a parish record and the other a BT? Did the parents/priest forget  he'd been baptised earlier (and the date he was  born)? Cordelia 14526 ------------------------------- To  unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SFHG-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 SFHG-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message