From: chris@dickinson.uk.net   
      
   On Wednesday, 22 August 2018 18:34:05 UTC+1, Richard Smith  wrote:   
   > On 22/08/18 17:57, Graeme Wall wrote:   
   > > On 22/08/2018 17:21, Richard Smith wrote:   
   > >> On 22/08/18 17:07, Ron Taylor wrote:   
   > >>> Rather strange. I have Harriot Lutterloh daughter of Henry and Phillis   
   > >>> baptised 1 April 1773 St Giles in Fields and again April 15 St   
   > >>> Marylebone - given the names etc clearly the same person.  There are no   
   > >>> explanatory annotations against either entry.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Any thoughts on this?   
   > >>   
   > >> It's not that uncommon.  Generally the first will have been a private   
   > >> baptism carried out in the house very soon after birth because it was   
   > >> thought likely the child might not live, and the second will have been a   
   > >> public baptism or reception into church when the child was well enough   
   > >> to be taken to church.   
   > >>   
   > >   
   > > But would a private baptism be entered in church records?   
   >    
   > Yes, they frequently are.  Sometimes they are noted as a private    
   > baptism, and sometimes you have to infer it from a double baptism as you    
   > have here.  I'm sure quite a few baptisms which were followed a few days    
   > later by a burial of the infant were also private baptisms, but we can    
   > never be certain about any specific case.   
   >    
   > Richard   
      
      
   Perhaps it shoould be pointed out that not all private baptisms were done   
   because the infant was sickly; indeed, in some circumstances only a minority of   
   private baptisms could have been done for that reason. There are other   
   considerations: for instance, a curate or rector seeking a boost in income, or   
   the church being in bad condition, or the weather making a home baptism   
   preferable.   
      
   I was thinking earlier of a potential different reason (that I haven't   
   considered before). Sociability. The rural area that I study had a high number   
   of Quakers - it was unusual for them to be so segregated that a hamlet would   
   not include an Anglican    
   family. A Quaker who might have refused to go into a steeplehouse might well   
   have been prepared to attend a private baptism.   
      
   Chris   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)