LONDON-L Archives

Archiver > LONDON > 2005-11 > 1133027333


From: Paula Goodfellow <>
Subject: Re: [Lon] Baptized twice
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:49:44 -0800
References: <hDLeWPARtJiDFwSN@varneys.demon.co.uk> <43889F22.8000208@charani.plus.com>
In-Reply-To: <43889F22.8000208@charani.plus.com>


Perhaps the little guy just seemed so neglected in general that they
figured he probably hadn't been baptized either. Now a question from
me-- I've heard that people believed that children who weren't
baptized went to hell, even tiny babies-- is that true? And if so,
why did some people wait so long to have them baptized? I've got some
ancestors who took two or three children in at a time, when the
oldest was about 8. Paula
On Nov 26, 2005, at 9:45 AM, Charani wrote:

> Eve McLaughlin wrote:
>
>
>> Probably the parents were not too sure if he had been baptised,
>> or, if
>> he was in the workhouse without them, the Guardians thought he
>> didn't
>> look as if he had been baptised - and as he was sick, they did it
>> just
>> to be sure.
>> There is a local entry about a small waif 'he not having the
>> appearance
>> of having been baptised, was duly baptised this day'
>
> How does one have "the appearance of having been baptised"??
>
> It's a serious question because it seems a strange comment. I've
> been to about a dozen baptisms and the children have seemed the
> same after as they were before.
>
>
> ==============================
> View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find
> marriage announcements and more. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx
>

This thread: