View Full Version : Baptism Query
Harriet Ann Moore (http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=gbprs%2fstaff%2fnormacot-holy-evangelists-baptisms-d790-1-1-1847-1878%2f00070&parentid=gbprs%2fstaff%2fbap2%2f248914)
Harriet Ann Moore was baptised in 1872 but according to the 1861 census was born in 1850, a year before her parents marriage.
Her baptism entry is at the bottom of the page. There is a word under her name, can someone please tell me what the word is and if possible what it means.
Under the date it says she is an adult.
I've answered my own question.
The word is Egerton, which is her married name misspelled. It should be Edgerton.
Interesting that she got baptised not only after she was married but after she had 2 children. I can only find one baptism so far but she called herself Mary, not Harriet.
Our famous Aunt Agatha was baptised after marrying and two children. She was brought up non-conformist and married the brother of a C of E minister. I always assumed she would have been baptised before marriage in that case.
She was baptised in her maiden name as well.
Harriet wasn't a non-conformist, her younger sister was baptised shortly after birth. Harriet was born before her parents married so I'm guessing this is the reason Harriet missed out.
Why she left it so long I'll never know.
Also for anyone who comes along later - Edgerton became Egerton over time.
My great grandfather's brother was baptised when he was 24, three years after his marriage and after the birth of two of his children. Most of his siblings were baptised around the time of their birth - I've no idea why he and one other brother weren't. He was baptised the same day as one of his nieces.
Why she left it so long I'll never know.
As those baptised as babies don't remember the occasion, she may not have know she was unbaptised and/or that she was born illegitimate until she was an adult.
Very true. I think she knew she was illegitimate as her surname was not the same as her father's, or at least by the time she got married she knew as she married in her mother's maiden name. Dad's surname was her second middle name.
She wasn't the only child born out of wedlock in the wider family but the only one where I know who Dad is. Neither parent was married previously so I have to wonder why they didn't marry first, or maybe they just didn't care, like a lot of people nowadays.
My great grandfather's brother was baptised when he was 24, three years after his marriage and after the birth of two of his children. Most of his siblings were baptised around the time of their birth - I've no idea why he and one other brother weren't. He was baptised the same day as one of his nieces.
My grandma was one of 12 children and I have only been able to find baptisms for 3 of them. I've spoken to one of Dad's cousins and she can't imagine why only 3 were baptised or why the rest were not in the local church. The family did not move. I need to go through the records again to make sure I didn't miss anyone but it is odd.
Might there be a financial reason for non-baptism? See the quote about 1/3 of the way down page 29 of this (very interesting) document:
http://www.localpopulationstudies.org.uk/PDF/LPS39/LPS39_1987_24-31.pdf
Olde Crone
18-07-17, 08:32
They may not have married because the groom could not get permission from his employer. If he was apprenticed or otherwise in a contracted employment he could not marry.
I think it is extremely unlikely that they were making a social statement by deliberately not marrying! It would have been unthinkable at the time.
OC
Might there be a financial reason for non-baptism? See the quote about 1/3 of the way down page 29 of this (very interesting) document:
http://www.localpopulationstudies.org.uk/PDF/LPS39/LPS39_1987_24-31.pdf
You are right, that was very interesting but arrghh, it also means that people are actually not on a register anywhere, rather than just being registered elsewhere. ;(
They may not have married because the groom could not get permission from his employer. If he was apprenticed or otherwise in a contracted employment he could not marry.
This is possible. He was an inn keeper and took over from his father by his father dying or retiring, I don't know which. He did inherit his younger sister and well as the inn. lol.
I think it is extremely unlikely that they were making a social statement by deliberately not marrying! It would have been unthinkable at the time.
I didn't mean to say they were making some sort of social statement but there are enough illegitimate children that sex before marriage was clearly thinkable, if not approved of, at that time.
Toni......did your lady get baptised in her maiden name or married name?
It's hard to say but I guess married, but let me explain.
I had not found her marriage or birth registration when I posted this. It looks like a normal child baptism except it says adult under the date and under her name Harriet Ann there is a rough line and a tiny word.
That tiny word turns out to be her married name. It does not list her father's surname as a middle name either. So it implies she was Harriet Ann Moore and became Harriet Ann Egerton when she was Harriet Ann Moore Egerton nee Eastwood.
Unless you knew she was married and her name was Egerton then the married name did not make sense and may have not been part of her entry at all.
Hmm this is a bit of a wait. Harriet's great grandfather's parents waited 11 years after he was born and possibly 23 years and 10 children to get married before having 3 more children in 5 years, dying 2 years after the last one, probably of exhaustion, within 2 months of each other.
The possible cause of delay is she was a widow, so maybe they had to wait for the first husband to die?
I thought the gorgeous man had written a will but no, it was someone else. I think I'll post tomorrow after I get my head around it all.
Don't ya just love em.......... :)
My Agatha Ariel married Edward Clark in 1839 and was baptised in 1842 after two children.
What I can't work out is that she was baptised as Agatha Ariel, daughter of Myles and Elizabeth. No mention of her married name.
My 3x great grandmother Rebecca Iliffe was born in 1820 - in 1830 she and her siblings were "baptised/registered" at Monks Kirby (WAR) Baptist Dissenting Chapel. On 30 May 1841 she was baptised in the CofE church at Maulden, Bedfordshire. On 6 Jun 1841, census night, she is found working (servant) at the Rectory in Maulden.
As her husband (married 1845) was also a non-con, I don't think her conversion was anything other than convenience.
Janet in Yorkshire
19-07-17, 16:44
Don't ya just love em.......... :)
My Agatha Ariel married Edward Clark in 1839 and was baptised in 1842 after two children.
What I can't work out is that she was baptised as Agatha Ariel, daughter of Myles and Elizabeth. No mention of her married name.
Most C of E bp register entries don't record a surname for the child. In the baptism ceremony only the forenames are stated by the godparents and the incumbent baptises "John" or "Mary Jane." The forenames and surname(s) of the parents are recorded in the register. It could be that in the case of the baptism of a married woman, a vicar may have decided to record her current surname, which would usually differ from that of the parents.
In the eyes of the church, it is the "Christian" name/forenames that are significant.
Jay
Most C of E bp register entries don't record a surname for the child. In the baptism ceremony only the forenames are stated by the godparents and the incumbent baptises "John" or "Mary Jane." The forenames and surname(s) of the parents are recorded in the register. It could be that in the case of the baptism of a married woman, a vicar may have decided to record her current surname, which would usually differ from that of the parents.
In the eyes of the church, it is the "Christian" name/forenames that are significant.
Jay
That's what I thought, Janet. In the Catholic Church, if a married woman gets baptised, she is in the register under her married name even though only her Christian names are used in the ceremony.
On Agatha's record there is no mention of her married name.
kiterunner
19-07-17, 22:08
Don't ya just love em.......... :)
My Agatha Ariel married Edward Clark in 1839 and was baptised in 1842 after two children.
What I can't work out is that she was baptised as Agatha Ariel, daughter of Myles and Elizabeth. No mention of her married name.
Strangely enough, FamilySearch has her baptism indexed as Agatha Clark, daughter of Myles Ariel and Elizabeth Ariel, in the "England, Bristol Parish Registers" database (also copied to ancestry as "Bristol, England, Select Church of England Parish Registers".) The image isn't available online though. Have you seen a copy of it?
No, I haven't seen it as Clark. I have a copy my sister got from Family Search in Salt Lake City which says Ariel. Maybe there are two. One in each name.
I'll check it out next time I go to the LDS.
Thanks for that.
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.