Infant deaths - include or exclude?

[yn9man]

I would definitely include. He was your nephew and your sisters son. 

My grandmother up to the time she died continued to talk about her son (my Moms younger brother) who died at 1 week. He is a part of my family history.

yn9man

[Bitza 5]

my mum often spoke of my younger sister who was still born.
 all i knew was the month and year of her birth which was up setting as i felt she didn't belong and wanted to know the date she was born. i felt she had the right to exist and the right to be given a place on my tree not just a number  but a proper date just like every one else had.

a few months ago i found out i could get a copy of the still birth registration which i applied for and now my little sister has her date of birth along with the rest of us and to me she truly belongs. it also brings a closure to a tragic end.

the only death i don't include are miscarrages where there is no registration of death.
i think of it this way if i had a child that died and some member showed my a family tree and my child wasn't included i would be up set. just because we didn't get to know them don't mean they didn't exist after all we have ancestors on our tree we never knew so why not include them all regardless of there age its part of our history and members of our family.

   bitz

[Nadine Moore]

Definitely include them. I found out my Mum had an Aunt who died at about 18 months old. Mum never knew about her, so it is important she is remembered now we have found her.

Dinie

[JDGen]

Sharon,

How sad for your sister and you and the rest of the family and I'm so sorry that this has happened to you.

I suppose when the experience is so recent it can depend on how everyone feels and it's very different from the sad but more distanced approach we can take with our ancestors.  I have felt moved to tears to find that a family lost 6 infants in the 1850's and only had 3 children who survived their parents but with the passage of time can objectivise it to see the social context.  I have always included all the children that I've been aware of as they tell me the story of my family.

It's very different when this is such a recent experience and everyone is going through the grieving process.  No-one should be forgotten so Glen should be on your tree.  Your sister and you will never want to forget no matter how sad the memories are.

Jean

[Tuscany]

I was concentrating on your dilema and forgot that my mother had two sisters, one died at 1 month and the other at 3 months.  I never knew anything about them until my mother happened to mention them one day thinking, that somehow,  I knew.  She didn't know too much about them except that they were buried in the corner of the churchyard.  Presumably they had not been christened and were therefore buried  in unconsecrated ground.  I know their names but can find no record of them anywhere but I have included them in all my records.

[Ruskie]

When my grandmother was a child, her father went away from home to work for a time leaving her mother with the children. He returned to find that five of his children had died - scarlet fever if I remember correctly ....

[Tuscany]

How terrible, I hope you've got them all.

[Simon G.]

I feel such things should always be included.  It seems stupid to me to omit them just because they died young and there'd be no offspring.  Would people doing this also omit adults who never had children?
Skipping out information for any reason would seem to fly in the face of what we're all trying to do with researching.  You can't get an accurate feel of how your ancestors lived their life if you blindly ignore half the evidence.

[Ruskie]

Just been doing a bit of checking ... I did get it a little wrong - four (out of seven children in the family) died of scarlet fever in the space of two weeks - one drowned at a later date.

No Tuscany I don't have them - and I never will I'm afraid.