Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's the difference between a Private Baptism and any other?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's the difference between a Private Baptism and any other?

    On a few of my baptisms for a certain family I have for instance:-

    Baptism 15 November 1789

    and in the notes:-

    Private baptism: received into church 18 Jul 1790: tax rec'd

    I had assumed that a lot of baptisms were done en masse and this was a lone one but they had to pay something although I don't understand the heirarchy of why anyone had to do this.

  • #2
    I haven't found many en masse baptisms, though there are often a group including new baby and any unbaptised older children, done on the same day.

    A private baptism would take place at the baby's home, possibly by a priest, but sometimes by midwife or family member, usually because it was feared the baby would not live.
    ~ with love from Little Nell~
    Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Little Nell View Post
      I haven't found many en masse baptisms, though there are often a group including new baby and any unbaptised older children, done on the same day.

      A private baptism would take place at the baby's home, possibly by a priest, but sometimes by midwife or family member, usually because it was feared the baby would not live.
      oh right, so they had to pay some tax to get someone out to do it - well this one did live right up until 80 years of age.

      Comment


      • #4
        No, I don't think they had to pay a tax to get someone out to do it. Anyone can baptise a baby in extreme circumstances.

        The tax was probably to do with the church.
        ~ with love from Little Nell~
        Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh okay.


          What intrigued me was the bit that says:

          received into church 18 Jul 1790: tax rec'd


          But the actual baptism was in November 1789 and this was in the Notes

          Comment


          • #6
            At various times in Church history, a tax has been paid (to the Crown) usually on baptisms or burial.

            The Church hated this as it made them unpaid tax collectors, and usually each period of taxation only lasted a few years - your relative was baptised during one of these periods of taxation. The fee was 6d, I think, and many Vicars turned their congregation en masse into paupers - no tax was payable on pauper events!

            OC

            Comment


            • #7
              One of the baps. I found for Yvonne in Oz was a pair of twins. They were baptised soon after birth. Their elder brother was baptised about a fortnight later at the age of nearly 2 and one twin was received into church the same day. Both twins died within a few weeks.
              Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                At various times in Church history, a tax has been paid (to the Crown) usually on baptisms or burial.

                The Church hated this as it made them unpaid tax collectors, and usually each period of taxation only lasted a few years - your relative was baptised during one of these periods of taxation. The fee was 6d, I think, and many Vicars turned their congregation en masse into paupers - no tax was payable on pauper events!

                OC
                Oh so they were just unlucky then to fall into the taxation period and it looks like their local church wanted payment.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yes, as I said, the Church collected this money on behalf of the Crown most reluctantly and wouldn't have been in any hurry to declare or collect on a private baptism.

                  Receiving the child into the church made the baptism "official" and the Vicar is recording that the parents had paid the fee.

                  OC

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Benny

                    I am not sure of the dates, but it is quite possible there was a further period of taxation - not to be confused with the periods when the CHURCH charged for baptism (6d) and fined for NON baptism (one shilling).

                    OC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Benny

                      Yes, apprentices had to be baptised.

                      If any fees were charged in the mid-to late 1800s, they would have been church fees, not Crown fees. The Church had already lost its exclusivity to nonconformity by then.

                      OC

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The tax was stamp duty as a result of the 1783 Act
                        stampduty

                        For other Acts of interest to family historians see
                        Acts of Parliament for Genealogists
                        Cheers
                        Guy
                        Guy passed away October 2022

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X