Infant deaths - include or exclude?

[Lydart]

INCLUDE ... how could anyone do otherwise ?  I've never lost a child at birth or to SIDS, thank God, but others in my family in the past have ... and they were all part of the family, weren't they, whether they died soon after birth, or aged one, or 15, or 45 ... 

I have in two instances, in 1839 and 1901, a twin who died, nameless, and I put them down with a name from the past of that family line, e.g. twin Isaac Smith, or twin Mary Jones ... maybe I should choose a more sex-neutral name now I think about it ...

[Tuscany]

I agree with everyone.

I always make a point of including them with as much info as possible, purely as a matter of respect.   I can't help noticing how many parents named a subsequent child after the dead one, so they obviously wanted that first one to be remembered.  They were after all little people.

[yn9man]

Very sad occurrences but I do include since they were, even though maybe for only a very short period of time, part of the family.

I came across a picture of my paternal g grandmother with a baby girl. Turns out the child only lived four months and was buried at sea. Many of my family members were not even aware of the fourth child.     

yn9man

[duckweed]

I think you always should include.  My grandmother's 3rd child was stillborn.  Because the infant was not baptised and they were poor the baby was buried outside the cemetary as such and the grave unmarked.  My grandfather pleaded with the grave digger to know where the baby was buried so he could show her the grave spot.  The memory lived with her all her life a cause or both sorrow and anger.  If the infant is not listed on our tree it would miss out someone who was important to my grandparents and also there would be a large unexplained gap between the second and the fourth child.  If you are a family historian you have to include all details.  A lot of deaths in the family is an indicator of the situation the family was living in at the time.

[Lydart]

I have been told that unbaptised babies who died soon after birth, were buried in the same grave as the next adult in the parish to die ... I like the idea, quite un-Christian I know, of the older person caring for the baby on its journey ...

But if our parish in Wales is anything to go by, there are only half a dozen burials a year ... so were deaths so frequent in times past that this practice can have taken place ? 

[linmey]

I have found twins in my family who obviously died soon after birth and were both simply recorded as Child Freeman. I have added them to my tree and didnt ever consider leaving them out.

Linda.

[wheeldon]

Even though it was common for children to die before their 5th birthday, their mothers feelings must have been the same as today, a profound sense of loss and these children would have been mourned.

I agree with other posts that if these children aren't included then we will never get a full understanding and feel for our ancestors lives.

[KathMc]

I always include the babies who died, as they are part of the full picture.

Sharon, of course include your nephew on the tree. My daughter was born at 25 weeks, weighing about 780 grams. She thankfully survived and is a thriving (albeit tiny) five-year-old now, but I couldn't imagine her not being recognized if she hadn't survived.

Kath

[Sooziecats]

Another similar thing, which I've wanted to post on Rootschat but have never felt able to and maybe now is the time, is my sister had a baby that died last year.  She was half way through her pregnancy when it was discovered the baby had no kidneys or bladder and would not survise (my sister was keeping him alive). 

I would include Glen, he was your nephew and your sisters son.  I think it is much better these days that people can talk about and remember their babes who did not survive.

I had a slight problem about including a child on our tree - he was born to my cousin's partner, but they split up when he was a few weeks old and things got nasty.  Neither my cousin or his parents have seen the boy for about 9 years - I wasn't sure whether to include him or not.  I asked my Uncle and he said Yes, add him to the tree as he is still part of our family - but it is upsetting for them as he is their only grandchild and they are not able to be part of his life.  Maybe in the future things will change and the lad will get to know them.

Sooziecats