Genealogy Chat

Thanks Marjorie. I think in this case the first of your options is most likely. Both entries were signed by the same vicar, and are on the same page in the register. Unless he was really dozy, surely he would have noticed that he'd already entered her when he came to write up the second baptism! Cheers, Richard

Richard The Church of England and the Church of Rome both allow for ANY confirmed member of their Church to baptise an unbaptised person 'in extremis'. Midwives or other birth attendants often baptised babies who looked as if they would not survive. I think in this case, this is probably what happened and the Vicar entered the first baptism in the register, just in case the baby died before she could be 'received into the Church' - which is a slightly different event to being baptised in the face of imminent death. The other thing which may have happened (it has, in my researches) - the Vicar did not write up Baptisms etc as they occurred, but made a note of them somewhere and entered them up once a month. Meanwhile, the Churchwarden had already entered them! Marjorie

Ian - I thought that was probably what had happened when I found the entries on the IGI. However, on the actual register they are clearly two separate entries, each in their own box, with two other names in between. None of the other entries in this register at this time show birth dates either, and there are no margin notes or alterations on either entry. Therefore, it seems as though she was indeed baptised twice, in the same church, by the same vicar, 3 weeks apart! Cheers, Richard

I have another possibility. When I have looked at baptism records at the record office, some have two dates. The first is the actual date of birth. I know this because the helpful 'vicar' has annotated it that way. Out of the 10 or so baptism records I have looked at 3 of them had the birth date. Just a thought.

Hi Carol Thanks for that, yes it seems a likely scenario that you suggested. Poor Charles was married twice - both wives died in their 20's, apparently in child-birth. Two of his 4 children died as infants too, so he lost 4 family members within 10 years. Just as well that Elizabeth survived, or I wouldn't be here myself :)

It could be possible that as the mother died in childbirth, the baby was in a bad way as well, so was baptised in case she died and would not die unbaptised. The baby subsequently recovered and was baptised again, probably because the father thought that the first baptism was not a proper one due to the haste. I say this because I was baptised twice myself. Once in hospitalas C of E, (I had thrush and was 4 months old when I came home) I was baptised again at church (Baptist) sometime after coming home from hospital.

Has anyone else come across this one before? g-g-grandmother Elizabeth Manning was born in Carshalton, Surrey in 1834. On the IGI there are two records for her baptism, 3 weeks apart. I assumed that one was a mistake, so have just got the microfilm in at the LDS and have checked it out, but it is real... On the same page of the baptism register, and only three lines apart, are these two entries: ''20-Apr-1834 - Elizabeth, d. of Charles & Sarah Manning, Carshalton, labourer'' ''11-May-1834 - Elizabeth, d. of Charles & Sarah Manning, Carshalton, labourer'' Now, her mother (Sarah) was buried in Carshalton on 20-Apr-1834 so I'm assuming that she died in childbirth, or very soon after. So, maybe Charles had Elizabeth baptised at the same time as he buried his wife - but, why would he then return three weeks later and have her re-baptised? This is the only Manning family in Carshalton at the time, so seems unlikely to be a case of two Charles & Sarah's having an Elizabeth at the same time (which would be quite a coincidence in itself). I'm baffled on this one - unfortunately all this happened just 3 years before civil registration began so the PR is all that I've got to work with, and there are no margin notes or any further clues that I can find. Any ideas anyone? Richard

see below...