Infant deaths - include or exclude?

[Gibel]

I had a tatty family tree which I’d done in the mid 60s, on it were named 3 siblings of my mother who’d died young. I bought their death certificates, the first child in 1902 was a son died at 3 hours old of crush injuries at birth. The second death was a daughter died of meningitis at age 4 and the third death was another daughter was 10 weeks and had congenital heart disease. The two girls are buried together in their own grave in the local cemetery. The boy appears to have been removed and there is no grave for him that I’ve found and there was no inquest into his death.

My maternal grandfather had been married before and when I investigated his first marriage I discovered he’d had two sons in the early 1890s who both died before the age of 2. He lost a son then his wife and then his second son. As far as I remember without checking the boys’ cause of death was given as failure to thrive.They are all buried together.

My grandfather had a good job in insurance so could afford a doctor. He died when my mother was 12 of pneumonia. I feel so sorry for him that of 8 children only 3 lived.

My paternal grandfather on the same 1960s tree was one of eight children born 1879 to 1895. Well actually he was one of 13. The family were poor my great grandfather having innumerable jobs and as far as I remember 4 of the children died before their first birthday from enteritis or diarrhoea and the fifth at the age of 18 months of bronchitis 3 weeks and exhaustion 1 week. This little boy really fought and I could feel for him.

My great grandmother died 13 years after the birth of her 13th child of carcinoma of the uterus and heart failure.

All these children who died young appear on my family tree, they’re part of my family and should and do take their place.

[Nanna52]

My grandfather was the eleventh child of the family and in Victoria previous children and ages are mentioned as are those who have died.  By putting all in my tree I found that one died at one week and recently that a girl died at one year of measles.  Hopefully by registering that others will realise that measles is a dangerous disease.

[River Tyne Lass]

Personally, I think it is the right thing to do to include 'stillborns' as they are still part of a family's history.
As I have journeyed into family history, it has been a bit surprising to me how some people almost seem clip stillborns or very young babies out even though they might be aware of them in the family history.
I can understand if this was a recent event and things are still raw, but sometimes this seems to happen even when it was a very long ago happening, such as over 100 years.
It almost seems quite a taboo and secretive. 
I had an Aunty who we always believed had been childless but when I got into researching records and registers I found out she had given birth to a son called Philip long before I was born.  My cousin Philip only lived 50 minutes but I do think of him as one of my cousins. No one ever talked about this and I would never have known if not for my family history hobby.
My Great x 2 Grandparents also lost a few months old son to an unfortunate accident.  According to the newspaper inquest, his Mother was feeding him in bed.  She turned over, and the baby's head knocked against the elbow of Father.  The injury led to the child 'Ralph' dying the following day.  They went on to have another son also named Ralph.  The first Ralph, I notice, tends not to be included in family trees.
I think it sad that stillborns and the very young can sometimes becomes the 'unmentionable' and written off from family history inclusion.

[frostyknight]

In the course of my research,  I discovered that my grandmother had a little sister who lived for only 1 minute. Is she on my tree? Of course she is, how could I leave her out, she was part of the family. I'm glad I found her and she's not forgotten.

There are also others in various branches who lived and died as babies or children. I also add stillborn children if I know about them. They are all part of the family history, and as such I include them all.

[BSmith2268]

I always include them, too.

My great grandmother was one of 9 children, but 4 of the children didn't survive beyond the age of 3.
I have made sure to include them all, including birth and death dates to make sure they will never be forgotten.
The eldest child, Ellen died in 1900 aged two, so my great grandmother born in 1901 was named    'Mary Ellen' after her.

The 4th child, Honora Theresa died aged three in 1907, but ten years later, an Honora born in 1917, was named after her.

The same happened with the 5th child Tim, who also died in 1907, aged 12 months. Three years after his death, a Timothy was born in 1910.

[iolaus]

If I know about them of course they go on there

Recently at my greataunts funeral she was described as the youngest of 5 children, the eldest died prior to any of the other 4 being born, all of that family knew him as their eldest brother, despite never meeting him (he died at 2 months old - from jaundice)

My grandmother was going to call her eldest after him - until he was born requiring surgery and there was a real change he may not survive, and she felt that it was tempting fate to call him after his uncle who died as a baby

My nephew was stillborn, he's on my tree

Saddest I found though was my dad's greatgrandparents who had 11 children, only three of them reached their 2nd birthday, my greatgrandmother was the eldest of the children (and I assume was the one who brought up the youngest as her mother died in childbirth - she was 15, he died aged 18 months) - 2 of her own children died as babies.   When I told my dad he said that was probably why she always kept herself detached from any babies in the family until they got to about 5 - she died the same month as her grandson died at a month old 

[Nanna52]

My great aunts life.
Elizabeth Mary James 1854-1880.  Married 1874. 
Daughter born and died 1874.
Second daughter 1876-1911
Son 1878-1878
Second son 1879-1880.
Elizabeth died in 1880.
She is buried in an unmarked grave with her two daughters. 
I haven’t bought her death certificate yet but will one day.
Without those babies in my tree only part of her life is told.

[DavidG02]

I have struggled with this off and on over the years - mostly stillborns and week olds

I dont think I have an exact answer , even for myself, but I am now entering them just to give clarity on gaps in births . When births have been happening regularly and then there is a gap of 5 years before resuming at similar regular intervals its good to know at least one reason why

I have recognised , and included, those babies who have died and their names recycled for other children so it gives me a greater understanding of the deeper family naming patterns

[toby_ax]

I always include infant or child deaths.

They are a part of my families journey, even if I never met such family as they existed long before me.

Although this was modern, my 2nd cousin thanked me for including her son who passed in infancy on my tree.

My 2nd Great grandma had 3 children who died in infancy and childhood, confirmed by birth certificates which my great grandma had kept a secret from my grandfather.

I even have some family photographs which include babies (still living in the photos  ) who died around 2/3, and so I have added both their names and their photographs to my tree so that they are not forgotten.

Including infant deaths provides to me a greater understanding of my families journey as well as who were commemorated through these infants names, many babies named after their grandparents.

It may make trees appear more cluttered, but to me, they are still a part of my family. In fact, I am glad in a way when I find an infant death. I am the only person in my family to be interested in family history. So finding a child or infant death I always think, when was the last time somebody thought of them, and so there they are, proudly on my tree! 

I have even searched newspapers to give them a proper date of death instead of just a quarter in which the death was registered.