Genealogy Chat

Christenings were not subject to the same rules as civil registrations and was often at the whim of the priest or curate. So in answer to your original question I would say maybe, but not necessarily. Unlike marriages, I have never heard of any requirement to be resident in the parish.

Base-born = bastard. Turns up on a regular basis in parish records.

'Spurious' is another one...but i think that had died out by the period you are look at.

One of mine, born to an unmarried mother, has his grandfather's name recorded as his father on the bap record . I do so hope that it was a misunderstanding - lol

Thanks Super Sluth.

Never heard of "base born" before. Those Priests were very trusting then, mother married to father, she could turn up with anyone claiming to be Mister X!

Back to the drawing board.

Goodnight
Mac

The record would give an address - you could check if that was in the parish.

As to whether both parents were present....someone else will have to answer that. As I see it, either the Priest would take it on trust that the mother was married to the father, or else he would record it at the 'presumed' or 'assumed' child of (father + surname) and (mother + surname). Some times 'base born' is added. If the mother was married or widowed, it was assumed that the child was her husband's...even if he died before conception - lol

Hi all,

A bit of general help please, just trying to eliminate a few(many) loose ends. Know one of you many helpers must have looked into this in the past!

Does anyone know whether the father needed to be present at a christening in the London area around the years 1837-1845 to be named on the record?

Also, did one or both of the parents need to live in the christening parish please?

Many thanks
Mac