Baptism Query - Genealogists' Forum

Kit · #1 15-07-17, 12:41

Harriet Ann Moore

Harriet Ann Moore was baptised in 1872 but according to the 1861 census was born in 1850, a year before her parents marriage.

Her baptism entry is at the bottom of the page. There is a word under her name, can someone please tell me what the word is and if possible what it means.

Under the date it says she is an adult.

Kit · #2 15-07-17, 13:14

I've answered my own question.

The word is Egerton, which is her married name misspelled. It should be Edgerton.

Interesting that she got baptised not only after she was married but after she had 2 children. I can only find one baptism so far but she called herself Mary, not Harriet.

HarrysMum · #3 16-07-17, 06:57

Our famous Aunt Agatha was baptised after marrying and two children. She was brought up non-conformist and married the brother of a C of E minister. I always assumed she would have been baptised before marriage in that case.

She was baptised in her maiden name as well.

Kit · #4 17-07-17, 23:59

Harriet wasn't a non-conformist, her younger sister was baptised shortly after birth. Harriet was born before her parents married so I'm guessing this is the reason Harriet missed out.

Why she left it so long I'll never know.

Also for anyone who comes along later - Edgerton became Egerton over time.

Jenoco · #5 18-07-17, 03:24

My great grandfather's brother was baptised when he was 24, three years after his marriage and after the birth of two of his children. Most of his siblings were baptised around the time of their birth - I've no idea why he and one other brother weren't. He was baptised the same day as one of his nieces.

Merry · #6 18-07-17, 06:21

Quote:

Why she left it so long I'll never know.

As those baptised as babies don't remember the occasion, she may not have know she was unbaptised and/or that she was born illegitimate until she was an adult.

Kit · #7 18-07-17, 07:46

Very true. I think she knew she was illegitimate as her surname was not the same as her father's, or at least by the time she got married she knew as she married in her mother's maiden name. Dad's surname was her second middle name.

She wasn't the only child born out of wedlock in the wider family but the only one where I know who Dad is. Neither parent was married previously so I have to wonder why they didn't marry first, or maybe they just didn't care, like a lot of people nowadays.

Kit · #8 18-07-17, 07:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenoco

My great grandfather's brother was baptised when he was 24, three years after his marriage and after the birth of two of his children. Most of his siblings were baptised around the time of their birth - I've no idea why he and one other brother weren't. He was baptised the same day as one of his nieces.

My grandma was one of 12 children and I have only been able to find baptisms for 3 of them. I've spoken to one of Dad's cousins and she can't imagine why only 3 were baptised or why the rest were not in the local church. The family did not move. I need to go through the records again to make sure I didn't miss anyone but it is odd.

Merry · #9 18-07-17, 08:18

Might there be a financial reason for non-baptism? See the quote about 1/3 of the way down page 29 of this (very interesting) document:

http://www.localpopulationstudies.or...1987_24-31.pdf

Olde Crone · #10 18-07-17, 08:32

They may not have married because the groom could not get permission from his employer. If he was apprenticed or otherwise in a contracted employment he could not marry.

I think it is extremely unlikely that they were making a social statement by deliberately not marrying! It would have been unthinkable at the time.

OC