Posthumous baptism

[amareargentum]

I wondered whether anyone had come across a baptism being carried out posthumously. The brother of my direct ancestor, Samuel Albert Burden was born in the Dec quarter of 1849 - no certificate obtained yet as the GRO is unable to copy it. He is then recorded as being baptised with his sisters Isabella and Elizabeth Mary on April 2nd 1851 at All Saints, Poplar. There is a note that I am struggling to read but I think says “ ? In Dec since deaf”
I knew he had died young and have recently managed to find his death registration. Samuel died on the 25th February 1851 of Dentition Convulsions. Clearly he could not have been baptised on that day. I wondered whether anyone had come across this before and was it a common practice?

[paulr1949]

I think it says "Marked (ie the sign of the cross) in December, since dead/dec'd". The note in the right hand margin gives the DOB but I can't work out the month - possibly September? - 24 1849.

HTH

[AdrianBruce]

Paul's pretty much on the right track, I suspect.

I'd guess that this relates to the procedure for a child thought at risk of dying before a "proper" baptism, who could be baptised privately at home according to the CofE's Order for the Private Baptism of Infants. Or even, in extremis, by the midwife. In theory, if they survived, they were then supposed to be brought before the congregation and effectively the missing parts of the Order of Publick Baptism (exact wording not guaranteed - but that was the spelling at one time!) carried out.

Exactly how this appears in parish registers seems to vary. In the classic cases, the private baptism appears in the PR marked up with a "P" and the second part also appears in the PR but without any markings. However, it seems quite likely that in some cases only the second service was recorded in the PR. Based on the fact that Samuel appears with his 2 sisters, I would suggest that in this parish, only that second service is normally being recorded. When the parents eventually turn up with the sisters for the second part, someone asks about Samuel because he is (it appears) not going to be recorded otherwise but he has gone through a basic baptism of some sort. The parish priest therefore adds him in, effectively as a note alongside his sisters - entry date is that of his sisters because, well, that's the entry date.

[Mick Loney]

I think it says "Marked (ie the sign of the cross) in December, since dead/dec'd". The note in the right hand margin gives the DOB but I can't work out the month - possibly September? - 24 1849.

HTH

The birth was registered in 1849 Q4, (Ref 2 355) so Sept seems likely, as a 24th Sept registration would possibly have arrived too late to make into the Q3 list!

[Guy]

Did they have another son Samuel Albert Burden there is a death certificate at-

BURDEN, SAMUEL ALBERT 1
GRO Death Reference: 1851 M Quarter in POPLAR UNION Volume 02 Page 282

Cheers
Guy

[Guy]

Wrong assumption on my part, only one son.

The month is February, i.e. 24 Feb 1849

Birth from FreeBMD
Dec 1849 Burden Samuel Albert Poplar 2 355
GRO adds mother's maiden name Everett


Death from FreeBMD
Mar 1851 Burden Samuel Albert Poplar 2 282
GRO adds age at death 1 year

Ancestry have mis-transcribed his name on baptism as Sarah Albert Burden.

You could get both registrations on PDF in about 4 days = weekends at the rate the GRO are supplying at present
Cheers
Guy

[amareargentum]

Thank you very much everybody for your help. I think you are absolutely right about the wording of the note- amazing how obvious it is when someone has pointed it out! I hadn’t realised that baptisms could take place at home like that. According to the death certificate Samuel was ill for 3 days so presumably that’s when he was “marked”.
Thank you for the details of the registration Guy. I have ordered both certificates although I only have the death at the moment as the GRO copy of the birth registration is not good enough to digitise. It was receiving the death certificate that confirmed that the PR was completed after his death. You are right about him being mistranscribed. I spent a while looking for a Sarah! This family were pretty bad at registering events, and presumably pronounced some of their names in a way that meant when they were recorded they have some pretty unusual spellings that being illiterate they wouldn’t have been able to check. A Sarah Albea didn’t seem too odd! Definitely Samuel Albert though.
Thanks again