Have you ever found someone and wondered about them??

[MarieC]

I agree that finding the deaths of babies and young children is inexpressibly sad, and that we should remember them in our trees.

A recent WDYTYA that I saw shed some light on one reason why a number of children in a family may have died young.  Apparently syphilis was extremely common, practically endemic, in the population in past centuries before antibiotics, and could be inherited.  The unfortunate person could be born with a disability such as blindness or with no major symptoms, but it would mean that many of their children would fail to thrive and die.  The effect apparently wore off eventually, so later children may have survived.  A cruel thing to happen!  I didn't know all this, and found it quite interesting.

MarieC

[LizzieW]

I don't think syphilis was the problem with my gran's children.  Only one, the little boy who died aged 2 weeks appeared to have congenital abnormalities.   One died as an adult from TB and the other aged 18 months from TB meningitis.  All the others lived until their 80s and 90s, with the exception of one who died in her 50s from an aneurysm.

Interestingly, my g.g.uncle who died in an asylum from a syphilitic related illness had loads of children, with 3 different wives, and none of them appear to have been affected.  All grew up and lived to an old age.

Lizzie

[LoneyBones]

This one is from the June 2010 Family Tree magazine;
John William Waite died in 1845, at age 14 months. Cause of death on certificate;
"Natural debility and decay resulting from the want of breast milk."
It seems some families simply couldn't afford to feed themselves or their children. If a mother wasn't fairly well fed, she certainly couldn't breast feed her child.

[Viktoria]

My special little one is a baby girl who died about four hours after she was born.
Her mother had hidden the pregnancy and the circumstances were very difficult in those days (1914) for a woman who had not lived with her legal husband for more time than nine months!
The tiny baby had no name , just " female", cause of death not known.
I feel for her and her mother and although not closely related -- mother was my grandmother`s cousin in a very small close- knit community -I think about them and will visit the ruins of the house on my next visit in the near future .                                                                                                     Mother and baby buried together in the one coffin.No marked grave, indeed their burial place is not certain .No one remembers now and I did not know the full story when there were people still alive to ask. As usual I am (and have been  for years )kicking myself. Viktoria.
As a point of interest when a death  is registered and it gives no name for a neo natal death would that always mean no name had been chosen or just that the baby had not been baptised ?

[LizzieW]

As a point of interest when a death  is registered and it gives no name for a neo natal death would that always mean no name had been chosen or just that the baby had not been baptised

I suppose it depends how long after the birth it was registered, but a baby didn't have to be baptised before its birth was registered.  In any case what a sad story.

Lizzie

[tkgafs]

For me it was the horror of reading my great grandmothers headstone which I had seen before several times, before becoming hooked on family history, and realising that 5 of her 17 children died in the month of June 1875.

It was probably something which would be easily cured with antibiotics now, but here it wiped out a third of the family.

Was childhood death so common that they just got on with life, are we we too soft now etc etc, but it certainly explained why 3 of thie children had been called william

Tkgafs

[LizzieW]

are we we too soft now

No, as you will see from an earlier reply, my gran was very upset when her children died in the early 1900s.  What I think is that people were more used to babies dying in the past so were more philosophical about it, whereas now if a baby dies everyone is shocked.

Lizzie

[Katharine F]

What a fascinating thread. 
 I discovered that my grandmother had previously been married but her 1st husband was killed in WW1.  So I researched him although he is not really a relative but I felt it was right to include him in our family history.

My other people are a family all living presumably happily in 1861 but in 1871 I couldn't find all the children, after a search I found 2 small boys in the workhouse and 1 girl in a school for orphan girls.
The other children were still with their mother. The father had died in 1866.  I often wonder how she chose who was to go and who was to stay at home. I felt so sorry for them all when I made this discovery.

[Maggie1895]

Welcome to Rootschat Katharine.
I agree with you that this has been a fascinating thread.   What I like so much about this board is the recognition that every record or story or fact is a person, not a statistic.   I hope you enjoy being part of the board.
As to your family having to make that awful choice amongst their children ; well, let's hope that places were offered for some of the children based on their ages rather than her having to actually make the choice herself.   It still must have been incredibly difficult for her though, we have it very easy.