Genealogy Chat

A relative of mine had a private baptism in the 1700s and then was 'received into the congregaton' about 6 weeks later.

What does this mean and why did some families baptise privately?

Thanks

Some times it was the case that the child was sick and not expected to live. In these instances, the Vicar/Curate would go to the home and perform a "Private" baptism. If the child was then received into the congregation at a later date, they would probably be expected to survive.

Many thanks.

In one branch of my Brooks family all 12 children were privately baptised. None died young.

Does this mean the family were unduly pessimistic? Or was there ever another reason for private baptism? (Agoraphobic parents etc) :)

Check the baptism date, sometimes they were all done at the same time.

Thanks.

Yes, I have had a case of a couple of children (siblings) getting baptised at once. One a few years older than another (I have quite a few where DOBs are given).

The Brooks family in question all seem to be baptised near birth. Children typically born 2 years apart and all being privately baptised individually.

Did some families just favor private baptism I wonder?

Whilst transcribing a local Parish Register I found that this occurred regularly (in about a third of Baptisms between 1796 and 1812). It struck me it could have been a method of making money by the vicar (I haven't checked who the vicar/s was/were during that period), but it seems to have ended with the introduction of the 'form' Baptismal register in 1813, rather than the 'freehand' one used before.
Steve