Genealogy Chat

However, John ..........................


the name you are given at birth or baptism can be changed any number of tiems during life


You jsut need to inform everyone that from now on John Smith will be known as Adam Foote .......... and that is perfectly legal as long as you have not done it for nefarious purposes.



............. and that is as true now as it was 100 or 300 years ago.


The name change will not show in any records, parish registers or wherever.


You can change your name legally by Deed Poll, and that change will be registered, and records kept.


But I would guesstimate that more name changes happen the first way than by Deed Poll


I can remember seeing notices in my home town newspaper in the 50s and 60s that said something like:-

As from November 1 2011, John Smith will be known as Adam Foote, and will accept no responsibility for any debts etc incurred by John Smith."

That was the more formal way of changing your name!

and advance notice was not always given.


Most people just did it.



sylvia

Thank you all very much for your excellent replies.

I have been advised, by my in-laws C of E Rector, that one cannot be baptised twice and given a new Christian name. Once you have been baptised/christened the name you are given is legally your Christian name for life. A change in your religious denomination or becoming a nun or monk (nuns/monk take a new name) does not change ones originally baptised name. Surname changes are possible.

In my ancestors case it is possible there has just been a name 'abbreviation' or name change for Parish Relief. I certainly need to view the parish records.

John

You're right Jean......I found this statement from 2008.


A recent letter issued by the Vatican Congregation for Clergy directs Roman Catholic dioceses worldwide to keep The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from "microfilming and digitizing information" contained in Catholic sacramental registers, according to a report in the Catholic News Service. The reason give for the move is to prevent LDS Church members from using the records to posthumously baptize Catholic ancestors by proxy.

The Vatican directive says the purpose of the policy is to:

"ensure that such a detrimental practice is not permitted in [each bishop's] territory, due to the confidentiality of the faithful and so as not to cooperate with the erroneous practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."



Cx

I was once informed by a record office that Catholic records were witheld to stop the Mormon church gaining access to them. This I have recently read somewhere was because they would re baptise them into there church???

"Conservative Friends completely reject all forms of religious symbolism and outward sacraments, such as water baptism or the Eucharist. Conservative Friends do not believe in the reliance upon practice of the outward rites and sacraments, believing that holiness can exist in all the activities of one's life — that all of life is sacred. Many Friends believe that any meal with others could be a form of communion."

Strictly speaking, baptism is a once and for all experience within both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England. Neither church believes in re-baptism.


It's worth checking the authorised websites for verification on this. However, what some of our ancestors did is often something else! Those who were seeking Parish Relief may have told 'porkies' in order to qualify.


Infants who were baptised at home privately were quite often 'received' into the church at a public service when they were well enough. They were not re-baptised.

Occasionally, there have been cases of babies being 'baptised' in hospital without all due ceremony and rites. This could then be completed at a church service.


IGP is correct - the Salvation Army do not baptise, they hold a 'Dedication Service' instead.


Those who move from one denomination to another outside of the mainstream churches is another subject.....



:-D Cx

I have an ancestor who was baptised with her (unmarried) mother's surname. Years later she was baptised again using her father's surname.

Snap, PigletsPal, I also was baptised twice - first time in hospital in case it was bombed; second time in parish church.

Sometime ago on a thread there was a mention of a batch of Quakers being christened in a C of E church. This was probably so that they would "belong" to the parish for Poor Relief.

Children aren't baptised with a surname, only christian names, so the Smith to Jones (possibly married name?) wouldn't come into it. Ann to Hannah is not much of a change, so possible.

you can be baptised twice. A relative of mine was baptised as a baby as CofE and as an adult as a Mormon (this took place within the last 20 yrs)

are you saying the name changed as well? That does seem unlikely if so

You CAN be baptised/christened twice.

I was baptised in hospital without ceremonies as I was dying

Later in the year I had a proper baptism in church.

Both performed by a Catholic Priest

On the other hand, anything was possible. No one seemed to ask too many questions or made any checks in those days.

PS - Apparently the Salvation Army don't practice it either.

You cannot be baptized/christened twice. However, it could be that your relative was 'accepted' into a different faith.
:-)

If a child has been christened in a C of E church e.g. Ann Smith, can that child be re-christened in another church, say Quaker, to say e.g. Hannah Jones?

This is supposed to have happened to a family member of mine in the early 1800's but I am not convinced this change was possible.

Can anyone help please?

Thank you.

John Rogers