Infant deaths - include or exclude?

[Suttonrog]

My view is that genealogy is history not just names and you can't change history. I also feel that all births should be recorded.

I have a family of 13 siblings, only 6 of who were named and only 2 reached adulthood. This is tragic history for this family and something I could not leave out.

Sutton Rog

[Pels.]

How on earth can we see the true picture of how our ancestors once lived, if we then take away part of their lives?
My paternal grandmother once told me of a first born son, Robert who didn't survive. For some reason I appear to be the only one told of this child? Neither can I find a birth  ..  ..
This is one of my memories and as a consequence baby Robert sits at the top of that particular branch, in front of my dad and his brother. It most likely broke my grandparents hearts at the time, it is therefore wrong to leave him out.

Pels

[sharonf73]

I include the children I've found.  My dad had two other sisters and my mum had one little sister.  They were given names and registered.  I believe now I had another three aunties.

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).  She was given the option to go full term or be induced.  She chose the latter.  Glen was born but because he was not full term she was not allowed to register him.  I want to put him in my tree but am unsure if this is the right thing to do since he was not registered birth or death (or maybe put a bit in my sisters notes?).  The hospital gave my sister a certificate to acknowledge him.

Oh, getting myself all upset again!!

Sharon x

[meles]

How sad. But I am pleased that, although the law says he could not be registered, the hospital gave a certificate. That must be very important to your sister.

I think you should ackowledge him in your tree in the way that you think fit. It is your tree, after all.

Thinking of you,

meles

[suey]

Oh Sharon   you've got me sniffing,  

Of course you must include this poor little chap, I'm sure your sister would want her little one remembered even if you only write a little piece about him in your notes.

I have included each and every one of the babies I have found who did not survive

How on earth can we see the true picture of how our ancestors once lived, if we then take away part of their lives?

Suey

[Cas (stallc)]

Thanks to all that replied, and glad we are all in agreement.  Have had similar experiences to some of the posts and felt quite touched by some of the replies.

Would like to add that I have had some very good contacts as well, who feel as I do, but do not add any info to my tree unless confirmed with my own research.  

All who posted are passionate about the family history picture, as am I, but such is life, I have come across others who are not so.

Sharon, if ok with your sister I would acknowledge Glen, he is part of the fabric of your family history and future generations will know of him, and also the loss your family suffered.  


Cas

[Tephra]

I put all babies in my tree.


Sharon that's truly a sad story, I feel for you and your sister.   Little Glen is a part of your family and it doesn't really matter if it's right or wrong, it's your tree after all.   Put him in your tree if you want to.

Barbara

[Pels.]

This surely has to be one of the most thought provoking threads  ..  ..  baby Glen deserves to be mentioned, as do all the other little souls that didn't quite make it! 

Pels 

[sharonf73]

Thank you for your replies.  He was my nephew after all plus it may help in the future as we've been told it could be genetic (renal agenisis, also known as Potters Syndrome), although I've not come across it in my tree but of course it could be down his father's side.

Sharon