Why am I always so disappointed...

[Greensleeves]

I have only  gone back to 1805. 16th century is really something.
ivor

I think I should add here that my uncle did most of the hard work to trace the family back, and this was in the days before the internet made it comparatively easy.   Another useful thing was that the family seemed to move between Rattlesden, Hitcham and Brettenham for about 400 years so most of them were relatively easy to trace.  A few of the adventurous ones might have got as far as Bury St Edmunds, but generally they seemed quite happy to stay where they were until the mid 20th century when the lure of the bright lights of Ipswich proved too much for them. 

[meles]

And they say this is progress??

Rishile

Your ancestors had a life expectancy of some 40-50 years. And they worked all hours, hard physical labour. They probably never enjoyed good health and access to competent doctors. Or a decent education. Seldom travelled more that their own two feet could take them, not that they had any more than Bank Holidays (for which they were not paid).

Count your blessings, Rishile. We are a very lucky generation. I doubt - looking at the way things are going - we shall enjoy such comfortable times for several generations.

meles

[Rishile]

Meles - on the contrary - many of my ancestors lived into their 80's and even 90's.  They were mostly Ag. Labs or similar and they travelled far more than I would have ever thought.  They lived in the fresh air, unhampered by the decision of which new mobile phone to buy or having to spend an hour or more trying to contact one of the utility companies. 

Yes, in some ways our lives are easier but we have other pressures they could not possibly imagine.

A case of the grass always being greener perhaps.

Rishile

[Jeuel]

I think as a generalisation that if people got over the first 5 years of life when they were suseptible to many childhood diseases we've eradicated - measles, whooping cough, diphtheria, TB, scarlet fever, smallpox etc etc etc they had every chance of reaching their 70s, 80s, or 90s.

In my family research I've found that the more rural and isolated people were, the healthier they appeared to be.  Partly fresh air, home-grown food but also because they weren't around other people and their germs!  In my lot, marshland Norfolk seems to be the best place to live!

In London both my and ex's families were a lot less healthy.  Overcrowding, sharing sanitation with many other families helped disease to spread.  It's also striking that many deaths involved respiratory illnesses, including TB, asthma, pneumonia etc, showing how polluted the air was.

As for whether people were better off or not, health is of course one indicator.  Our ancestors didn't know about labour-saving devices and were used to making do.  They were probably no happier than we were - except that now we have leisure and opportunity to dwell on whether or not we're happy.  I doubt if in their busy lives they did much reflection, but probably sank into deep sleep every night from exhaustion!

[Lydart]

I'm sorry to say that I have to disagree with Meles too !

My ancestors were, as are the majority of ours, also ag. lab's ... all that I've found lived long lives ... well into their 70's, 80's and even late 90's !!   The only one that didn't was kicked to death by a cart horse at the age of 40. 

I think nowadays people eat worse food, and too much of it; drink too much; don't exercise enough; and are grossly over-weight as a consequence.   I have to say when I'm doing visiting in the hospital, I'm shocked to see so many very overweight people, especially children,  sitting in the waiting rooms ... and the dozens of people standing around outside the hospital smoking as though their lives depended on it. 

[meles]

Interesting views. Elizabeth Gaskill's novel "North and South" debates the issue from a contemporary point of view - she felt that the lives of the poor both in the country and the towns were pretty awful - both had their good points (country - fresh air; city - some money) but both had bad points (country - unemployment, no money; city - overcrowding, illness) and both had very, very hard work.

As it happens, my ag labs also had quite long lives (those that survived infancy). But the average life expectancy was far shorter than nowadays.

And I still think we are are the lucky generation. Things were tougher in the past and are about to get much, much worse.

meles

[Lydart]

That must be why my son has just borrowed £200 from me ... 

[Rishile]

It’s not the length of life that is important but the quality of that life.  If you don’t think you will live beyond 40 or 50 but are still going into your 70’s, wouldn’t that be more of a bonus than it would be now when we expect to live into our 80’s? 

And once your time is up, whether it’s 40, 80 or 110, there’s nothing you can do about it anyway and that hasn't changed.

Rishile

[meles]

Again - look at Gaskill (and other contemporary writers). The quality of life for most in town and country was not good. Meagre and poor diet. Long, long hours at work and very hard work it was too. The quality of life was not good for most people.

As I say, we are a lucky generation.

meles