RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: philipsearching on Saturday 08 November 14 22:53 GMT (UK)
-
I know these figures are not unusual, but they remain painful.
One of my Gt-Gt-grandmothers recorded her offspring (born between 1875 and 1897 in Bermondsey) on the 1911 census. Of 15 children born alive 9 died (aged from 1 day to 7 years). To add to her woes 3 of her 5 surviving sons were killed in the Great War and her only surviving daughter lost 4 out of 8 infants.
-
Painful indeed but grateful that you came through one of the lines
-
It always seems to me that the death rate was much, much higher in urban environments. I suppose that was due to unclean water and infectious diseases in an overcrowded environment. In rural areas, even without much access to medical care, the children seem to have fared better. Here are some families in my tree all from rural areas in the northern United States:
#1. 7 children born 1831-1845, 1 died age 8.
#2. 6 children born 1861-1881, 1 died age 6.
#3. 5 children 1838-1849, no deaths
#4. 10 children born 1838-1854, no deaths
#5. 14 children born 1857-1885, 2 deaths in childhood
#6. 6 children born 1874-1886, 1 died age 6 mos.
#7. 9 children born 1845-1860, no deaths
#8. 7 children born 1876-1892, 1 death in infancy
6/64 children died before adulthood = 9%.
-
We really do forget how fortunate we are... how someone lives through that amount of heartbreak is unimaginable.
My husbands Great Grandmother also had 16 children of which thankfully only 2 died in infancy - though quite how so many survived is a small miracle in itself given that in 1891 they were a family of 8 living in 2-rooms, and by 1911 had only 'progressed' as far as 12 people (8 of which were by then adults) living in 4-rooms. They were from a small mining village and life must have been incredibly tough and then, as you say, along came the war.......
-
One of my three-greats grandfathers outlived all nine of his children through a mixture of infant mortality and early deaths through accidents. Can't imagine what that must have felt like.
-
Infant mortality was so common in 'olden days' and even now in third world countries, that people possibly became more immured to it than we are today when babies are expected to live.
About 10 years ago when I worked in a children's hospital, a doctor who had come here as a refugee from the Middle East chaos - when I queried why people had big parties for a one-year-old who wouldn't have known what it was all about - said it was to celebrate the fact that the child had survived its first year, when so many died without reaching that milestone! Brought me up with a jolt.
Dawn M
-
It always seems to me that the death rate was much, much higher in urban environments. I suppose that was due to unclean water and infectious diseases in an overcrowded environment.
Poor sanitation, poor diet, poor air quality, overcrowding aiding the spread of disease, lack of affordable medical care - and various other factors (including ignorance and poverty) took a heavy toll among the urban poor in those times. Britain did not suffer famine - unlike Ireland where the urban poor and the rural population suffered terribly when potato crops failed.
Hard times, indeed.
-
What many seem to forget is families from rural backgrounds had a wealth of experience in animal husbandry.
Knowing how to birth and successfully rear animals was a great help in birthing and rearing humans as well.
That adds to the other advantages of living in a rural setting.
Cheers
Guy
-
It is sad to say that it was a fact of life. My grandfather was the youngest of eleven born (1877) on the goldfields. Two were lost as babies, one twelve and one seventeen. Even those who reached adulthood struggled. His oldest sister died at the age of 26 having had four babies in five years, only one of whom survived to her first birthday. My grandfather died at 41 leaving a widow and 18 month old daughter.
-
What many seem to forget is families from rural backgrounds had a wealth of experience in animal husbandry.
Knowing how to birth and successfully rear animals was a great help in birthing and rearing humans as well.
That adds to the other advantages of living in a rural setting.
Cheers
Guy
Good point, Guy. They also had better access to medicinal plants.
-
I think that a better diet was a major factor - the rural population had access to more and better food. Here's what my grandfather said about the farms in central Wisconsin during his youth [about 1875-1900]. He grew up on a small, not especially prosperous family farm:
"The farming was largely subsistence. People took their grain to the grist mills and had it ground into flour. The grains taken were wheat, rye, maize, and buckwheat. ... Almost everyone had a patch of sugar cane [sorghum]. ... A garden was a necessity. This was well manured and plowed early. The first thing to come on the menu was parsnips which had been left in the ground all winter and dug as soon as the frost was out. Next was asparagus and pie plant [rhubarb]. ... It was an aim to have the first new potatoes and green peas by the fourth of July. Between the time of pie plant and new potatoes, there was the season of "greens" -- dandelions and nettles, also, later, pig weeds and red root. ... There were squashes, pie pumpkins, rutabagas, beets, carrots and cabbage to be put away with the potatoes in the cellar. During the summer, apples had been dried, sweet corn dried, jams and jellies made, and some had begun to can fruits in mason jars. By my day, most every farm had an orchard with apple trees and sometimes with cherries and plums. Everyone expected to grow their own strawberries and many had currents, gooseberries, raspberries and blackberries. ... All farms had cows, fowls, turkeys and hogs; many had geese and some had ducks. ... Most every farm had sheep. ... As an addition to the diet, most of the farmers did some hunting and fishing. Many looked for wild berries and expeditions were made into the scrub pine regions further north in the blueberry season. Most of the farms had a melon patch where they grew both watermelons and muskmelons. In the fall, hazelnuts and hickory nuts were sought and put away for winter use as was a stock of pop corn."
-
It always seems to me that the death rate was much, much higher in urban environments. I suppose that was due to unclean water and infectious diseases in an overcrowded environment.
Poor sanitation, poor diet, poor air quality, overcrowding aiding the spread of disease, lack of affordable medical care - and various other factors (including ignorance and poverty) took a heavy toll among the urban poor in those times. Britain did not suffer famine - unlike Ireland where the urban poor and the rural population suffered terribly when potato crops failed.
Hard times, indeed.
Britain did suffer famine. There was famine in England in 1795 and 1801 due to really bad harvests following bad winters and made worse because of the cost of war with France
The 1840s were known as "hungry forties" in Britain too.
Rootschat topic here about high number of burials in 1795 PRs
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=678335.msg5419457#msg5419457
-
Britain did suffer famine. There was famine in England in 1795 and 1801 due to really bad harvests following bad winters and made worse because of the cost of war with France
The 1840s were known as "hungry forties" in Britain too.
Rootschat topic here about high number of burials in 1795 PRs
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=678335.msg5419457#msg5419457
I stand corrected - my apologies!
Philip