Name Refusals

[Norfolk Nan]

I'm browsing the Baptism register for St Lukes, Chelsea c1748 and there are a handful of entries scattered about that record the first name of the child with 'parents' name refused' - why would that happen? Any ideas?

[Mick Loney]

illegitimacy?

[Norfolk Nan]

Maybe... perhaps the clergy at St Lukes were happy to take the fee and ask no questions. Generally, they like to name and shame

[VALLMO9]

...record the first name of the child with 'parents' name refused' - why would that happen?

When you say "parents' name" -- do you mean it's the father's name that's missing from the baptism register?
Sometimes the mothers would refuse to name the fathers. Hence the name was refused.

As you're looking through 18th century St Luke records...don't forget that London Lives have online record entries from St Luke's Workhouse Registers: Workhouse Admissions and Discharge Registers. The records cover 1743-1769 and 1782-1799.

Link: https://www.londonlives.org/static/SLDSWHR.jsp

[jonwarrn]

I'm browsing the Baptism register for St Lukes, Chelsea c1748 and there are a handful of entries scattered about that record the first name of the child with 'parents' name refused'

Pick out Christiana, 24 Dec 1748. Parents names refused
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903 ... SH3-79QV-7

Generally, they like to name and shame

Yes, they've got the names of some "reputed" fathers in there, useful for some.

[AdrianBruce]

Well, illegitimacy usually leads to a mother's name appearing, so doesn't seem a likely cause for the omission of both names, as here (Christiana's case). And there isn't even a child's surname...

Could it be that the parents were not Christian?

[jonwarrn]

The Ministration of PUBLICK BAPTISM of Infants, to be used in the Church.

And note, that there shall be for every male-child to be baptized, two Godfathers and one Godmother: and for every Female, one Godfather and two Godmothers.

When there are children to be baptized, the parents shall give knowledge thereof over night, or in the Morning before the beginning of Morning prayer, to the Curate. And then the Godfathers and Godmothers, and the People with the Children must be ready at the font, either immediately after the last Lesson at Morning Prayer, or else immediately after the last Lesson at Evening Prayer, as the Curate by his discretion shall appoint. And the Priest coming to the Font (which is then to be filled with pure water) and standing tberé, shall say,
Hath this child been already baptized?
If they answer, No: then shall the Priest proceed as followeth...

The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the Church of England..
Many editions, this one from 1745 on google books
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sz5 ... g=RA1-PA14

Did all of that really happen?

[Norfolk Nan]

It is a mystery - under what circumstances are parents desperate to have a baby baptised but refuse to identify themselves? And so many in one parish?

Interesting that the parents should be asked if the child has been baptised before - I have an example of a child being baptised twice: Henry Augustus Davison baptised by parents in Uxbridge, Hillingdon on 14 Aug 1818 and again on 12 May 1820 in St Lukes, Chelsea where the family are returned to the workhouse. It's the same family, the second baptism records his birth date. Is this a case of the church obtaining extra fees despite the guidance in the BoCP?

[VALLMO9]

I have an example of a child being baptised twice: Henry Augustus Davison baptised by parents in Uxbridge, Hillingdon on 14 Aug 1818 and again on 12 May 1820 in St Lukes, Chelsea where the family are returned to the workhouse.

I research a family with the same situation. Baptisms when babies, then baptised again when entering a workhouse outside of their parish. I remember reading that some workhouses required the person be baptised before he/she could be admitted.

[AdrianBruce]

It is a mystery - under what circumstances are parents desperate to have a baby baptised but refuse to identify themselves? ...

I don't think that can have been the case - it makes no sense. Could it be that this is an adult who refuses to give their parents' names because they don't want to be identified - baptisee and / or parents?

... the second baptism ... Is this a case of the church obtaining extra fees despite the guidance in the BoCP?

I don't think that this is some sort of administrative fiddle - the idea that you shouldn't be baptised twice is a religious thing. In my own words, if you baptise someone twice, God is liable to react, "I heard you the first time!" Of course, if there is debate about the first baptism, e.g. it wasn't in the Church of England therefore wasn't really a proper baptism, or no-one is totally sure if the first baptism really took place, then it's reasonable to do it again - IIRC there is a form of words in the service of Baptism that covers this scenario, intended to explain things to the Lord. But deliberately double baptising for no good reason seems to run counter to the church's teachings.

Maybe it is something to do with going into the workhouse as Mo suggests - they require that the person entering is baptised, but then the entrant isn't quite certain if they have been baptised, so they get done again, just in case.... And then those that want to fly under the radar, as they didn't say then, either refuse to identify their parents, or just don't know...