From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:39:41 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden   
    wrote:   
      
   >> Thx. On reflection you may well be right. Birth was on 30 March, first   
   >> baptism 1 April so sickness and danger of death seems very possible   
   >   
   >Let's not rule out the possibility of a mistake: registrars are   
   >human,and the registrar in this case may have failed to notice that the   
   >baptism was already listed.   
      
   But if they were in different parishes there would be no way of   
   noticing.   
      
   I recently came across one where the first baptism was in London,   
   where the parents were living, and the second in Cheshire, where the   
   grandparents were living (and grandfather was the rector).   
      
   I suspect that the parents planned to have the child baptised by   
   grandpa, but because of illness had it privately baptised  locally,   
   and then when they visited the grandparents had the public reception   
   there.   
      
   Incidentally, a warning.   
      
   I picked this up on FamilySearch, where transcriptions of both parish   
   records were available. But the person who had put this individual   
   into the FamilySearch family tree gave the place of residence and   
   place of birth of the child as Cheshire. A quick check in FreeBMD   
   showed that the birth was registered in London.   
      
   It seems that many of the transcribers have transcribed as though the   
   people who were baptised in the church lived in the church and were   
   even born in the churcgh, and listed the place of residence as the   
   church itself, rather than picking it up from the "Abode" field in the   
   register.   
      
   Occasionally on FamilySearch you can access a photo of the original   
   register entry, and this becomes apparent.   
      
   Normally the "Abode" field is the abode of the parents, and only   
   incidentally that of the child, but FamilySearch is not geared to link   
   them that way automatically.   
      
   A better assumption (though still an assumption, needing corroboratory   
   evidence) is that, before hospital births became customary, the   
   "Abode" field is a clue to where the child was born, and that, rather   
   than the church where the child was baptised, is more likely to be the   
   place of birth.   
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   Web: http://hayesgreene.wordpress.com/   
        http://hayesgreene.blogspot.com   
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/afgen/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)