Unusual Baptismal Record?

Lionheart

I have a church baptismal record for an ancestor which is puzzling me.

As far as I can can make out she got married only about 10 years after her baptism. I can only assume that she was baptised some years after her birth. I don't know how unusual this would have been.

In her baptismal record (in the 1840's) there is no father stated and there is only one sponsor. There is no surname after the child's name.

Is this how the baptism of an illegitimate child was recorded?

I thought that the mother's surname would have been used. I have gone through a couple of years of baptisms around the same time, i.e. over a thousand records, and I have found no other baptism where the child's surname has not been recorded.

lottpaul

If this is an RC church record it would be extremely unusual for the child not to be baptised within a day or two of birth. There was a very real - and justifiable - fear of infant mortality and all of the consequences in Catholic belief of the time for Limbo, burial in unconsecrated ground etc so baptisms were very quick and often done without the presence of the mother.
Re births outside of marriage I have often seen a symbol at the top of the page which says something like "illegitimate births recorded thus" etc and this symbol is then written in beside certain entries. I'm not sure if this was a universal practice however.

There may just have been a mistake in entering her details; a 7 written as a 1, a 3 as 8 etc, 2 as 5 and so on. Entries from smaller churches were often transcribed at a later date into the main parish register and mistakes could have been made then.

Lionheart

Yes, this is a RC church record. I don't see any mention in the register as to how illegitimate births should be recorded. I've looked at few thousand records and all children have recorded surnames. I'm surprised at this because I would have thought that there were many illegitimate births in the 1840's.

I'm trying to guess why the mother would not have baptised her child shortly after birth. Maybe she didn't wish to divulge the name of the father to the local priest? And then of course why did she baptise her some years later. Maybe for first Holy Communion reasons? Has anyone any idea at what age children made their first communion in the 1840's?

KildareFan

One possibility is that she was baptised CoI first and then RC? I have a great great aunt & uncles who were baptised CoI and then several years later were all baptised together in an RC church.

In relation to births out of wedlock - see an article on Kilrush at http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/a-sexual-revolution-in-the-west-of-ireland/.

Lionheart

KildareFan wrote: »

One possibility is that she was baptised CoI first and then RC?

That's an interesting line for me to follow - I hadn't thought of that possibility. It seems that there are very few CofI records available online.

KildareFan wrote:

In relation to births out of wedlock - see an article on Kilrush at http://www.historyireland.com/18th-19th-century-history/a-sexual-revolution-in-the-west-of-ireland/.

A fascinating read! I have an ancestor whose first wife died from puerperal fever in a workhouse. The article is about the workhouse and unmarried mothers and I couldn't help but think of the conditions that those women give birth in. I imagine many must have died due to the appalling conditions.

CeannRua

OP, what do you mean by there being no recorded surname? Do you mean the format goes something like 'Mary daughter of Margaret Murphy...'?

If so, this wouldn't be a unique record. It could also be that there was some doubt about the validity of any baptism carried out when this person was a baby.

Children received Holy Communion at around the same age as nowadays.

Lionheart

CeannRua wrote: »

OP, what do you mean by there being no recorded surname? Do you mean the format goes something like 'Mary daughter of Margaret Murphy...'?

Yes, the format is "Margaret of (Blank) & Margaret Murphy". In the final column its just says "Margaret". The child had the same first name as the mother.

I've used the surname Murphy as the real surname is very unusual in this area. This is the only baptism recorded with this name within a 50 year period. I've just noticed however that the mother was a sponsor in another christening a week after she had her own child baptised. That is the only other time that her name appears in the 50 years. Maybe when she asked to be a sponsor she might have decided or remembered to have her own child baptised.

If so, this wouldn't be a unique record. It could also be that there was some doubt about the validity of any baptism carried out when this person was a baby.

The reason I thought it may be unusual is that I've been unable to find any other record where a surname has not been written in.

CeannRua

There are no surnames here, for instance
http://churchrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/display-pdf.jsp?pdfName=cork%20%26%20ross.st.%20finbarr%27s%20south%2C%20cork.p4779.00406

I've seen others similar to this when browsing but wouldn't know where to find them again. When you think about it, appending a surname to the child's name is a bit unnecessary. Most of the time it should be obvious what the surname is from the rest of the record.

BTW, strictly speaking, a person should not have been re-baptised on conversion from the Church of Ireland to Catholic Church. It did happen, but was really only supposed to occur if there was some doubt about the validity of the original baptism.

Coolnabacky1873

Lionheart wrote: »

Has anyone any idea at what age children made their first communion in the 1840's?

Up until 1910 it was around 11, Pope Pius X then changed it to around 7 years old.

Lionheart

Coolnabacky1873 wrote: »

Up until 1910 it was around 11, Pope Pius X then changed it to around 7 years old.

That's interesting. I'm now wondering how children got their first communion in the 1840's - somebody on here may know. Would it have been on an organised basis like it is today ( i.e all eligible children from a school on the same day), or would it have been on an individual basis i.e once a child reached aged 11 they would receive it on the following mass day?

I'm assuming that it would not have been organised like it is now.

CeannRua

Lionheart wrote: »

That's interesting. I'm now wondering how children got their first communion in the 1840's - somebody on here may know. Would it have been on an organised basis like it is today ( i.e all eligible children from a school on the same day), or would it have been on an individual basis i.e once a child reached aged 11 they would receive it on the following mass day?

I'm assuming that it would not have been organised like it is now.

I've seen biographical/autobiographical notes about people who got First Communion closer to today's age than eleven. If they're correct, I'm not sure eleven is a minimum age, which seems to be the meaning you're taking.