DEVON-L Archives

Archiver > DEVON > 2011-04 > 1304099066


From: "Bill Churchill" <>
Subject: Re: [DEV] DEVON Digest, Vol 6, Issue 120
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 12:44:27 -0500
References: <mailman.587.1304060497.4277.devon@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.587.1304060497.4277.devon@rootsweb.com>


Pamala,

Hard to say but it may be that upon birth the baby was not expected to
survive. In that circumstance it could have been Baptized by a Midwife or
Layperson if necessary. Upon survival it might then be re-baptized by
Clergy upon admission to the Church. But if a Clergy rather than Layperson
performed the initial Baptism and recorded the event the baptism was done
and no later Baptism upon the baby's survival would have been necessary.


Bill Churchill

Message: 5
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:52:21 -0300
From: "Pamela" <>
Subject: [DEV] MEANING OF ADMITTED TO CHURCH - ANN KING OF MODBURY
1787
To: <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii"


Why was a baby "admitted to the church" several months after baptism?

That baptism was private, connoting the baby was not expected to live - but
was this considered a lesser ceremony?

The Modbury parish register notes in full: Ann KING, daughter of Roger and
Eleanor, was privately baptised 8th November 1786 and admitted into the
church 5th January 1787.

Ann lived to marry Philip LANG of Ugborough (my line).

Be great if someone can explain this

Cheers,
Pamela




This thread: