Genealogy Chat

I have just found some baptisms on Dorset opc, one of which is relevant to me; 1749- 18 Mar John (privately) son of John & Frances Pike received 17 Apr. My questions are a) what is privately? b) what does received mean? c) are any of these remarks relevant to the fact that John & Frances didn't actually marry until 24 Apr 1749, in which case, at the time Frances should have been listed as Frances Dover, so why wasn't she? Any explanations gratefully received.

Briefly, a private baptism may be carried out in the home, by a midwife, if, say, the child is sickly. You can only be baptised one, so instead of having a public baptism, you are received into the church in a ceremony when you are healthy enough. In some parishes this was unusual, in others, every child appears to have had private baptism (possibly reflecting an absentee vicar).

Re-reading your query, the couple may have wished to keep the birth as private as possible. It would be interesting to know whether their marriage was by licence or banns. (You cannot, unfortunately, always tell at this period.) I had ancestors a few years before this whose marriage followed the baptism by several months. I actually found from the marriage allegation that the vicar was their bondsman and they did not marry on the earliest date allowed by the licence. I assume that he baptised the infant, then discovered they were not married and they went through the ceremony with the utmost reluctance and solely at his instigation!

Brenda, excuse my ignorance, but what is a bondsman?

A bondsman stood surety that you were eligible to marry. Had you been, say, a minor marrying against the wishes of your parents, then the bondsman would stand to lose his bond. I can't remember whether it was a fixed amount, but it was a lot for those times, say forty pounds.

I have 2 private baptisms in my tree. One was a child born about 3 weeks after the parents married. I am not sure if they baptised her privately to avoid the disgrace, or whether she was born a bit premature (though obviously not much!) and was too ailing to be taken to church. nell

Another point to consider: have you see the actual (photocopy) of the PR or is it a transcription? At that time, the dates were 'Ecclesiastical' and the year 1745 started on 25th March and ended the following March - which would still be the ecclesiastical year 1745. So, for instance, you could have someone married on 1st April 1745 and their child baptised on 22nd March 1745 which would be nearly 12 months after the marriage. It confused me for ages! Marjorie