Genealogy Chat

Thanks to everyone for your comments - they've given me something to think about! I have seen the original parish register for the baptism and I also have a copy of the marriage certificate for the wedding. I suppose there are three main possibilities: 1The daughter is the mother of the child and therefore lied to the vicar by pretending it was her little brother.(Naughty!) 2 Her mother is the mother but didn't go to the church with the baby but left her eldest daughter to do it. 3 Her mother raced from the village baptism to her own wedding in the nearby town. Now, if her new husband was not the father options 2 and 3 make more sense! Oh for time travel.... Jan

Have you seen the original records of both events? It wasn't a case of BOTH events taking place in the same Church, but the records have been divided at some stage. I am not explaining this very well, but...I have several baptisms which took place in the village Church. But by the time these are TRANSCRIBED, onto Bishop's Transcripts, they are listed in the MOTHER church, which is some ten miles away. On examining the records of the Mother Church, the additional information is given (but not transcribed) as having taken place in the village Church. I hope you understand what I mean! OC

You don't KNOW that the mother wasn't there, as times aren't recorded on baptisms or marriage certs. 6 miles is a walkable distance and easier on horseback. But it is odd that the baby's baptism isn't in the same church as his alleged mother's wedding. I think the odds on the daughter being the baby's mum are probably quite high. nell

And it may well be that the Vicar knew very well what was going on, and had squared his conscience with a firm assurance from the grandparents, that they were going to bring the child up as their own, and be responsible for it, thus saving the daughter from shame and disgrace. It is significant that it happened on the day of the wedding, I think - I have several baptisms of children on the same day that their parents married - although admittedly, both baptism and wedding were in the same church! OC

I've just been trawling through some 18th. century baptism transcripts and it's quite interesting to see what's recorded. Apart from several 'supposed' fathers, there's one where the husband scarpered before the birth and a few more where the father died before the birth. J

I'm afraid my money is on the eldest daughter being the mother............. Reg

Gwyn It was 1839. And the couple were married after banns in the town. So that should mean that they had been resident there for 3 weeks I believe. They would have had to dash to the village and then back to the town. But why didn't they do it the other way round in that case? then the child would have been legitimate? People often didn't baptise children for months or even years after birth. It's all very puzzling! Jan

When was this Jan? .....just thinking about feasibility of transport links between venues. Gwyn

Janet As to lying to the Vicar.... If it was a small village there was probably no way you could get away with it. A town or city.... Then very easily, I guess, if you were not regular attendants to his congregation :) Chris

Reg I'm afraid she was! 18. I know illegitimate children were often brought up by the grandmother pretending to be the mother but it would have taken a lot of nerve to lie to the vicar, surely? The plot thickens... Jan

Was the eldest daughter old enough to be the mother of the child? Reg

Gwyn The baptism took place in a village about 6 miles from the town where the wedding took place. Chris The child was brought up by Mum and new husband so I believe it was her child as indeed it says in the parish register! He also gave the child his surname in later censuses. I think you may have put your finger on the spot with the suggestion that the daughter said her mother was unwell and couldn't attend. Maybe it was a way of hiding her 'shame'. I suppose it didn't absolutely HAVE to be the mother and /or father actually present at the church.

Janet That has put my imagination into overdrive :)))) Was it a village or large town? If a village then I suspect the vicar would know what was 'going on' and may or may not be happy to do it. If a town then it's possible Mum asked her first daughter to take the baby to be baptised and first daughter could say mum couldn't attend as she was ill (or even dead) and the dad was deceased! Do you know who brought up the child? Was it mum and new husband or the child's half sister? Might help to create new scenarios!!! :))) Chris

Were these events far apart, could Mother have gone to one then the other? Was the child baptised in church...or could it have been baptised at home but by the vicar of the parish, so that it was entered into that parish's baptism register. I'd never really thought about who was actually there at the time of baptism, although I have seen it recorded if the father had previously died. Gwyn

Was it common for a child to be baptised without a parent being present? This seems to have happened with one of my ancestors as the mother - a widow - was in another town (getting married to her second husband!) on the same day when the child was baptised. I suspect the child was taken to be baptised by the mother's eldest daughter from her previous marriage.