We welcome any query on Who When Where. If you have previously posted it on another forum (including the old WDYTYA forum), please state this in your opening post - this will save people redoing the research which has been done before: they can look at it and possibly go further with it.
There are quite a few of these unidentified children in the register so there’s more going on than we understand. And because there are a fair number the cleric must have understood the reasoning. I can’t work out why the mystery but it’s around 200 years ago so how could I? Different times etc.
Yes, the idea about a second baptism makes sense. (I think Mo suggested it too.) I don’t suppose Henry’s parents could prove his first baptism considering their circumstances. It’s just another one of those funny little things that we come across, eh?
If you have the dates to hand, check what date Henry Augustus Davison entered the St Luke Chelsea workhouse. Was it shortly after his second baptism date (12 May 1820)?
If he entered the workhouse a day or two after that baptism it's very likely that the workhouse required the baptism for entry.
This is one of those instances where dates really come in handy. Dates can often save on guesswork.
Norfolk Nan wrote: ↑25 Sep 2022, 18:19
There are quite a few of these unidentified children in the register so there’s more going on than we understand. And because there are a fair number the cleric must have understood the reasoning.
Could the reason be that these (unnamed) parents shouldn't legally have been involved with each other? Example: a man and his sister-in-law. By withholding all names, except the baby's first name, perhaps the parents thought they would escape gossip or repercussions by being covert.
I've seen a few 18th century baptisms in which the only name given is the surname. No first names for the baby nor mother. Baptism notes usually indicated "Mother refused name", etc.
