RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: kellysmith1976 on Thursday 20 October 11 17:00 BST (UK)
-
Hi, I realise that im shocked about something that must have been an everyday occurrence ...
However i have had many branches of my family where they have lost a few children, But i have recently found a new branch where the poor family lost 5 of their 7 children before their first birthday..
I have had a look on London Lives and they did live in a impoverished area, They were Robert & Jane Fleetwood, they married in Oct 1713 At All Hallows The great London, , I cant make out which parish Jane Perry (wife) was from.. But i know Robert was from St Andrew Undershaft.
All of their children were christened at St Andrews Undershaft, London And they seemed to name their children the same name which is a bit confusing they had
2 Charles Fleetwoods, and 2 Robert Fleetwoods!.. All died sadly... They all lived and died between 1714 - 1722.. John Fleetwood 1720 (my 6 X Great grandad) Survived thankfully!
I have looked and i cant find a record of their street address...
Just thought it was shocking....
-
Hello, I've had this too, and in regard to the name thing, it was common practice to name a child after one who had died, I had 3 Mary's before the one who actually lived in one family!
It could have been a birth defect? For example, a relative of mine and her husbands blood types don't match, (O+ and AB- I think) so her body treats a baby from her husband as a 'parasite'. It's very difficult to carry to term, and then when the baby is born it will 99% of the time need a blood transfusion at birth. This may have happened to them, and of course there would not have been the medical knowledge to save the poor little babies.
Or perhaps it was just a generally disease filled area. The rates of infant mortality were very high in those days weren't they :s
Still, it probably means they loved your John all the more :)
Jenny
-
Just confirming that it was common for certain families to loose children.
During the course of transcribing the local church memorials, countless times there has been included ' and number of children died in infancy'.
As many as six children on one memorial, some names recorded whilst others by numbers.
Brian
-
I think it's quite common - even into fairly modern times. And it seems to be wealth dependent I think.
One of my poorer families in the 1880s and 1890s lost 8 out of 15 children usually before the age of 2 (I doubt the number of kids helped either!).
-
Oh my fancy delivering 15 times :o
-
Same thing happened in a branch of my family.
They lost 7 children between 1869 and 1878. Johann and Annie died in 1869 aged 2 and 1, another child died aged 1 in 1871 and then 4 died before their first birthday. They then lost another daughter aged 16. They were left with 2 sons. The eldest son married, but his three children also died in infancy. The younger son emigrated to Canada and joined the army. I have traced his records and they say that he was discharged due to a weak heart, so I wonder if this was hereditary.
It's hard to imagine what they went through.
Jan
-
On the 1911 census I found some relatives of my husband who had misunderstood and listed all their children and their ages at death.
Of 8 children, only 2 survived and the ones that died rarely lived to see their first year. They were living in a very poor part of London, but later moved to Portsmouth and the children born there all reached adulthood.
-
Lots of diseases that some of us remember as children (i.e. measles, chickenpox, polio) were killers, and fortunately they have practically died out in Europe. Sadly, some are making a comeback, due to the reluctance of some parents to have their children vaccinated. Children had to run a gauntlet of disease until the age of about 12, and sadly many of them didn't make it.
-
So sad, I have been looking into the area, and it was one of the most impoverished areas, I looked on Booths site and its on there too...
Can anyone make out where Janes Parish was?... It looks to me like St Stephen colman!...
-
Yes it's St Stephen Colman Street: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Stephen_Coleman_Street
Yesterday because of new parish records released online, I found that one of my ancestors had five additional children who died in infancy that I didn't know about (since they died between censuses). Now at least they are not completely forgotten.
Alexander
-
Im like that too... If i find the birth & sad death of a baby or child, i always think that at least someone knows that they did exist!..
What new records are you talking about genes?..
Thanks i will look through the link!
-
Of course, that's the tragedy about genealogy, there's lots of these young souls which we don't find, because we're simply not looking for them. My grandmother was one of 10 children (or that's what I thought), and it was only when a lost family Bible was found that it became apparent that she also had twin brothers that were her mother's first-born that my grandmother probably never knew about. It was only after comparing the contents of the Bible notes with the death records for the parish that these poor little mites were found. Whenever I look at the birth dates of children in a family and there are large gaps, I often think of the children who probably either didn't make it to full term, or who only lived a short time :'(
-
The sad and unfortunate high infant mortality rate was always there throughout history, due to many factors, some of which have been listed on this thread.
There were several spikes through the ages, and it is sad but interesting background reading. The great plague of the 17th century and several epidemics of cholera and typhoid fever in the 19th century spring to mind. If you find a sudden increase of infant deaths, it is often a worthwhile exercise to check if there were any increases of disease.
The other thing to remember is with the growth of towns and cities there wasn't necessarily the same rate of improvements in sanitation or health; London being one of the worst.
Obviously it helps if the minister or clerk is kind enough to put extra details in the register, such as cause of death.
-
Apparently, if 2 or 3 children die in succession at a young age it can be a sign of syphillis infection (from the parents). However, in the middle of a festering city there are many other things that can take a child so I doubt syphillis was a major contributor in your instance. My own great-great grandparents lived in relative rural bliss but lost 3 of their children in succession, which raises my suspicions of the cause!
The church of St Andrew's Undershaft is probably the only original building left in that part of London. It is immediately adjacent to the iconic "Gherkin" tower in the financial heart of the modern city.
-
Some women were just prone to miscarriage. My cousins were born 11 years apart, and from what I've been told, their mother lost many children between the two births.
-
It would be an interesting exercise to see if there were more infant and child deaths in the bigger towns and cities than in the smaller villages and countryside. My money's on the towns and cities to have more, given the sanitation and health standards.
-
I think a lot depended on the water supplies, and whether they got contaminated or not. In Soho, London, the original well pump which caused part of the cholera outbreak is still there (disabled now, of course). Hundreds of people walk past it every day, not realising its significance.