Why would a family get christened as adults?
These Knowlden-Williams children were all baptized the same day in 1860. They were all adults by then, and at least Adelaide and John Francis were already married by then. Is there any reason they would have been baptized all together like this as adults? I know they are adults from their ages in the 1841 & 1851 censuses.
Christening record in 1860
Kommentare
-
Most common reason is likely to be that the family were members of a non-conformist church for a while at least. Some such churches did not practice baptism. Others practiced it and maintained records. Even here a family might re-join the Anglican church at a later date. Remember that it was a requirement of the Anglican church (and others) that you must be baptised in order to be buried in the church graveyard. Also a vicar might refuse to marry unbaptised people.
One of my ancestors was baptised at age 15. All his older siblings were baptised as infants as normal then there is a long gap before he and his younger sister were baptised. Not sure why but non-conformist is almost certainly the answer. Produced some interesting results with Temple work as someone assumed he was the oldest child baptised as an infant and did the work for his parents based on the old assumption that the father was age 25 and mother age 21. Wildly inaccurate in this case!!!
Usually, but not always, the baptism record will indicate where the person was older than an infant. Clearly not in your case!
Regards
Graham Buckell
1 -
I hadn't thought of that for the whole family. I know that was true of one grandmother who was a Quaker in Wales. She and her brother who was witness for her marriage were baptized into the Church of England the Sunday prior to her marriage, and one additional brother the Sunday after her marriage. I'll go looking for this family in other churches! Thanks for your help!.
0 -
Apart from the probable reason suggested by Graham, I have found there is often no logical reason for baptisms that took place at a later date. In one example I found a child (not a baby) was baptised in the parish church, then the rest of her siblings - of varying ages (but, again, ages not shown - so they appear to be quads at first sight!) baptised a couple of weeks later. Maybe the parents thought they'd use one child in a "trial run" - i.e., if nothing untoward happened to her following the baptism, they could feel relaxed about having the rest of the children baptised!
No, some "odd-looking" baptism practices / timings just don't make sense at all.
0
