There are two entries in the parish register of Ashbourne, Derbyshire, England that I do not underst
The first entry is on Image 141 of 713 dated 12 MAR 1737/8 regarding the baptism of Sarah, daughter of Georg Slater. The URL to the page is: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:2:77XR-8FQL?i=140&cc=1911752. The entry is prefaced with an abbriviation beginning with Re-. What does that mean?
The second entry appears a few pages earlier on Image 136 dated 3 JAN 1736/7 regarding the marriage by banns of Joseph Clark and Mary Slater of Ashbourne. The place name (I hope) after Joseph Clark is difficult for me to read because of the condition of the document and the write-over or correction on the word. Could you interpret it?
PS: Just above the entry for Sarah on Image 141 is another entry of her baptism dated 26 FEB 1737/8. This might explain the annotation before her second entry.
Thanks,
Bart
답변들
-
This is just a thought: I notice that many of the marriages in this parish are by licence. The number seems unusually high, suggesting that the people of the parish were well off or something else was going on here.
I understand that sometimes the wealthy would have their children baptized privately, then they might be "received" into the church. Could the abbreviation be Rec? Do Bishops Transcripts exist for this time period? Maybe get a second chance if the writing is clearer.
The writing after Joseph's name looks like it could include Clifton, which is near Ashbourne, but I'm not familiar enough with Derbyshire to guess what it might be.
0 -
You are onto something! To me the writing also appeared to read Rec: (Received), but it made no sense to me. Then you mentioned "being received into the Church". I looked up that expression and here's with the Family Tree Forum has to say about it: "If the child survived then it would be "received into the church" which involved a different ceremony from the baptism service. Baptism is to call God's attention to one of his souls. Receiving into the church is admitting the child into the body of the Church on earth.
What still throws be is why the word baptism is repeated. The article seems to be speaking about a different ordinance. Maybe it is brevity for being received into the church post baptism. At any rate I'm going with what you had to say about it.
I think you are right about the place name as well. I was combining the gobbletygook immediately before it into one word. Any clue what that was?
At any rate, you hit it out of the park!
Thanks again!
Bart
0 -
"What still throws me is why the word baptism is repeated. The article seems to be speaking about a different ordinance"
It's simply two parts of the one "service". The classic reason for a double baptism like this, is when the child is at risk of dying before a normal baptism can take place in church. In such a case, the child is baptised at home (on 26 Feb 1737/38 here) using the Order of Service for the Private Baptism of Infants (exact words not guaranteed) rather than the default Order of Service for the Publick Baptism of Infants (meant to take place in church, before the congregation).
The private baptism at home is an abbreviated form of the public baptism - I forget the exact way it's all worded but the order of service for the private baptism then mandates that, if the child survives, then the parents shall bring the child to church (12 March 1737/38 here) and the child shall be received into the church before the congregation, effectively by doing those bits of the public baptism that the private baptism at home had missed out.
So, basically:
Public baptism = Private baptism + Reception.
The way in which this is recorded varies - the term baptism is used for both stages because, as I say, the two stages are equivalent to a normal baptism.
Other ways include the first baptism being marked as a "P" for Private and then an unmarked baptism or even just two baptisms with no differentiation between them.
I'd never seen the "Received" wording before so that's nice for me to see, thank you.
0 -
Sorry, I don't even have a guess as to the writing before what might be "Clifton." I do have to say, though, that as I get more familiar with an area of the country, some of these previously unreadable parts somehow magically transform themselves before my eyes! I simply haven't spent any time researching in Derbyshire. After looking at what you are dealing with in terms of the handwriting, in my opinion you've done remarkably well thus far. Good luck.
0 -
Back atcha! I truely enjoy learning from this group.
Bart
0 -
Thanks!!
0 -
Adrian's explanation falls completely in line with my research of relatives in Norfolk. Many of them (as well as unrelated individuals) are to be found recorded as having two baptisms. The first usually mentions the child was " privately baptised", whilst the second event in the register shows, "...received into the church". Yes, it all seems down to high infant mortality rates at the time, where the parents would have their child(ren) baptised at home as soon as possible, in case they should not survive - then have the public baptism in the church, presumably when the child was strong enough to undergo the journey from home.
0 -
Thanks Paul for reaffirming the answer to the quesiton. It boosts confidence and morale.
Bart
0