Godparents who are children?

VirginiaB

I have found several Godparents who appear to be children in the RC parish records from the early and mid-19c. Was this common? Has anyone else found children as Godparents? I have one such case in NYC--an eight-year-old cousin of the baby--but have never heard of it happening today.

VirginiaB

I can't seem to edit the above post so am adding here that I am referring to the Irish RC parish records where I have found a child or two as Godparents. As mentioned, I also found a case in NYC among Irish-born family.

tabbey

My father's godfather was his nine year old brother. That was in 1914.
I asked the priest about this, he replied quite frankly; They were supposed to be confirmed, but sometimes they were not.

pinkypinky

Yep, agree with Tabbey.

Tullyneasky

I don't think this was so unusual until relatively recent times. My elder brother, aged 12, was godfather to my youngest sister in 1969.

He'd been confirmed, and he knew his prayers and catachism in Latin. Always was a clever dick.

VirginiaB

Thanks for these replies. I guess it happened but I can't tell how common it was, especially, as you note, for a child not yet confirmed. Appreciate the input.

kildarejohn

tabbey wrote: »

My father's godfather was his nine year old brother. That was in 1914.
I asked the priest about this, he replied quite frankly; They were supposed to be confirmed, but sometimes they were not.

Just speculating here, but bearing in mind that the godparents had a specifically religious role, maybe a child was chosen for religious reasons.
The role of a godparent was/is to ensure the baby is raised in the Christian faith in the event that parents are not capable. Perhaps the reason for choosing a child might be (not casting any aspersions on tabbey's ancestors) that available older persons such as uncles might have been deemed unsuitable due to some scandal or "sinful" lifestyle.

jos28

Yep, I was a Godparent at 13. We were told that once I had been confirmed it was OK. Back in the olden days when I was young we made our confirmation in 4th class. I would have been 8 in 4th class so I could have been a Godparent then.

VirginiaB

Sounds right. The same NY Irish family with the eight year old cousin as godfather later had the teen-aged siblings as godparents for the younger children--but they were 16 or so and certainly confirmed by then.

tabbey

It also has to do with the availability of adult relatives on the day of baptism. Today a baptism / christening is a big social occasion, where people make arrangements to attend.
A century ago, births and baptisms were frequent and unplanned. Babies were baptised a few days after birth, probably on weekdays when most relatives were at work. In many instances, the mother herself was absent. A sibling could be easily pressganged into service as a sponsor.
An even more worrying practice was that of taking newborn babies from Holles Street Hospital to Saint Andrews, Westland Row, for baptism, without even the mother being aware, let alone the father. A number of faithful parishioners felt honoured to be allowed do God's work in this regard. Study of parish records around 1880s & 90s will show that babies whose fathers had names that suggested that he was non RC were more frequently in this category. You will recognise these baptisms by having one female sponsor, usually the last few in a day's baptisms.

pinkypinky

tabbey wrote: »

It also has to do with the availability of adult relatives on the day of baptism. Today a baptism / christening is a big social occasion, where people make arrangements to attend.
A century ago, births and baptisms were frequent and unplanned. Babies were baptised a few days after birth, probably on weekdays when most relatives were at work. In many instances, the mother herself was absent. A sibling could be easily pressganged into service as a sponsor.
An even more worrying practice was that of taking newborn babies from Holles Street Hospital to Saint Andrews, Westland Row, for baptism, without even the mother being aware, let alone the father. A number of faithful parishioners felt honoured to be allowed do God's work in this regard. Study of parish records around 1880s & 90s will show that babies whose fathers had names that suggested that he was non RC were more frequently in this category. You will recognise these baptisms by having one female sponsor, usually the last few in a day's baptisms.

Pretty sure my 1940s born relatives were taken by their dad to St Andrews for baptism without their mother. In one case, he changed the planned name because he didn't like it! Also, the godparent doesn't have to be there. Any confirmed person can be their proxy.

VirginiaB

If we're talking about the 20c, when hospital births became the norm in the US, women were often in the hospital for a week or more after childbirth. Baptisms occurred when the mother was still in the hospital or resting at home. I don't think my mother was at my baptism.

My Irish-born great-grandmother had ten children in NYC and chose members of her own birth family, no matter age or condition, as godparents. They included the eight year old cousin and her own elderly, near-death father and the older siblings as well.

KildareFan

Another reason why mothers didn't attend baptisms was the practice of 'churching' - where women who had given birth were given a special blessing in church. Some people believed that these new mothers were not allowed to attend mass and other ceremonies until they had been 'churched'.

In relation to Holles Street - I was baptised in St Andrews Westland Row the day after my birth while the mammy was still lolling around in her hospital bed. I suppose infant mortality was higher in the old days so people wanted the child to be baptised as quickly as possible.

pinkypinky

Yes, you're right about churching, Kildarefan. Hideous concept.

VirginiaB

I'm sorry to disagree but I think the old custom of a special blessing for women who have given birth was lovely. I would have appreciated it for myself. Read the Wikipedia article about 'churching after childbirth'. Regardless, it has not been practiced for many years and evidently rarely in the US where so many of our church customs came from Ireland.

KildareFan

In theory churching might seem benign, but in practice it wasn't - some people believed that new mothers were 'unclean' and needed to be cleansed before being allowed out. See article at http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/churching-women-after-childbirth-dublin-tenement-1913-1061449-Aug2013/

VirginiaB

With all due respect, the linked article quoting a dramatist naming no documented sources would not be something I'd rely on one way or the other.

pinkypinky

Alright, we're getting off topic here, albeit in an interesting way.

Thread closed.

Thanks all.
PP