RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Cas (stallc) on Wednesday 06 December 06 22:56 GMT (UK)
-
Hi All,
I have viewed a few trees in connection to mine that do not include infants that were born to the family that were stillborn or did not survive the first 5yrs etc.
I always include these children in my tree, after verifying, as I think it is their rightful place, and where they belong. I would not feel right excluding them. Also it gives an incite into the family history, loss, tragedy and sign of the times...
Some contacts have said they would have no connections adding them to their tree, as the children did not survive :( but I think family history is about the big picture or as near as any of us can get to it.
What are other views on this. Do you include or exclude?
Cas
-
Hi,
I put all the family on the tree;even the babes who only lived a few months. They were part of the family after all.
Nanny Jan
-
Include! I agree, it adds to the big picture. I often wonder how parents coped with so many infant deaths - perhaps they half expected to lose a number of their children, as so many did. The way of their world ...
-
Of course I include them. The tree is 'family history' - any am. genealogist who omits them wouldn't get very high marks from me.
The silly billies don't realise they may be omitting vital clues to family susceptibility to illness or gene irregularity do they?
My mother's sister had a cot death with her first baby (the next children grew to adulthood thankfully). The syndrome isn't in any line I've researched but I bet it's in the father's line somewhere - he died in his early 50's as he was getting on a bus to go to work and his son, my cousin, suffered his heart attack in his late 40's. thankfully he's still with us.
Rena
-
Hi,
I include them. Whether they were stillborn or a few months old. If I had ever lost a child, I would never forgot them and I can't imagine that their mothers ever did, so I include them all in my tree.
I have found 3 out of 5 of my gr-grandmothers, Joseph was 3 months when he died, Ruth 18 months and Phyllis just a few months. Joseph and Phyllis are buried in Birmingham, but Ruth is in her own little plot in an unmarked grave here in Canada. She is actually in the same cemetery as my grandfather, her brother, which makes me happy that she is not alone. I have been saving my money to purchase a marker for her grave. Joseph and Phyllis are in common graves, but I would like to do something for them.
Karen
-
Me too ! .... for sure I include them !! :-\
Annie
-
Definitely include them. They were part of the fabric, too. I doubt if the greiving parents forgot about them.
-
My Granmother had a stillborn daughter. She is in my tree and i have named her.
When my father saw my tree he was surprised to see i knew about her ( My grandmother had told me many years ago ). He also said if his mother had been allowed to name her baby it would have been the name i have given her. Dad was pleased to know she will be remembered.
They are all part of our Family and should be included.
Carol
-
HI Cas,I include those who did not survive beyond childhood, when looking through OPR,s in Scotland you can see how fever epidemics wiped through complete comunities.I have a 6 week old child buried at the family grave but no mention on the grave stone but he is listed on the burial records, he is part of my Family Tree, regards [only slightly silly] Billy
-
Hi
I include stillborn births as well and any child that dies, my sister had a stillborn daughter whom she named and visits regularly also my sister whom i never met died 5 months...these are our family and should have the honour and rightful place on our tree's
Raels
-
I certainly would add them to my tree :'( :-*
I think some researchers don't look hard enough to find the poor little ones and that's why in some cases they aren't added.
-
I certainly include stillborn babies and any child/adult that has died young. They are part of my family. I have 1 cousin that was stillborn and his brother died 10 months old.
helina
-
I have also included them. Found three only the other day to one family - sad...
meles
-
I also include them, they may not have lived very long but they are still part of the family.
If they were all excluded it doesn't give a true picture of the family in my opinion.
Kerry :)
-
I agree with all the points put forward. It is interesting that all of us genealogists here are voting to include these rellies. It makes me wonder why they are not considered by your contacts, Cas. Can they really call themselves family historians. If they are omitting these children on a believe that they only survived a short time - where do they draw the line as being a viable age? what else have they overlooked because they don't like what they see? I would question all of their research.
Sallysmum
-
Some contacts have said they would have no connections adding them to their tree, as the children did not survive :(
Cas
I feel that anyone who could say such a thing is possibly only a "name" collector. Doesn't seem that they give much concern to proper representation of a family and the details of their lives.
It would appear that if you can't give them more names for their tree that you are of little use to them and are therefore disguarded. I wonder if after a few years searching for possible spouses and offspring of family members who did reach adulthood if they revisit each family group and wipe out all those with no descendants, never married or are in other ways not pulling their weight by plumping up the tree.
I find this practice and attitude very disturbing....... :'( :'( and am so glad that not one person on this thread agrees.
dollylee
-
Include them - My Nan was the youngest of 17, 14 lived to adulthood. I have only managed to find 2 of the babies, one died at birth and the other at 5 months old. I have visited the cemetry where one is buried, although it is an unmarked grave. I stood in silence and said a little prayer for the lad - and I knew my Nan was somewhere watching down on me.
It was very sad, even though I obviously never knew the boy but I did feel very strongly that he was a part of my family.
Sooziecats
-
Include them...absolutely!! I have two or three branches that show babies that died young all with the same name. One of my lines had 3 Roberts, before one survived. I think apart from anything else, it shows the determination of some of our Ancestors for family names to be carried on.
Sooziecats, my Nan too had a stillborn son. He only survived 2 days & they didn't name him. Again, like yours, he's in an unmarked grave & I did the same as you & experienced my Nan smiling down on me.
Debbie
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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 surviveHow on earth can we see the true picture of how our ancestors once lived, if we then take away part of their lives?
Suey
-
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
-
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
-
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 :'( :'(
-
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
-
INCLUDE ... how could anyone do otherwise ? I've never lost a child at birth or to SIDS, thank God, but others in my family in the past have ... and they were all part of the family, weren't they, whether they died soon after birth, or aged one, or 15, or 45 ...
I have in two instances, in 1839 and 1901, a twin who died, nameless, and I put them down with a name from the past of that family line, e.g. twin Isaac Smith, or twin Mary Jones ... maybe I should choose a more sex-neutral name now I think about it ...
-
I agree with everyone.
I always make a point of including them with as much info as possible, purely as a matter of respect. I can't help noticing how many parents named a subsequent child after the dead one, so they obviously wanted that first one to be remembered. They were after all little people.
-
Very sad occurrences but I do include since they were, even though maybe for only a very short period of time, part of the family.
I came across a picture of my paternal g grandmother with a baby girl. Turns out the child only lived four months and was buried at sea. Many of my family members were not even aware of the fourth child.
yn9man
-
I think you always should include. My grandmother's 3rd child was stillborn. Because the infant was not baptised and they were poor the baby was buried outside the cemetary as such and the grave unmarked. My grandfather pleaded with the grave digger to know where the baby was buried so he could show her the grave spot. The memory lived with her all her life a cause or both sorrow and anger. If the infant is not listed on our tree it would miss out someone who was important to my grandparents and also there would be a large unexplained gap between the second and the fourth child. If you are a family historian you have to include all details. A lot of deaths in the family is an indicator of the situation the family was living in at the time.
-
I have been told that unbaptised babies who died soon after birth, were buried in the same grave as the next adult in the parish to die ... I like the idea, quite un-Christian I know, of the older person caring for the baby on its journey ...
But if our parish in Wales is anything to go by, there are only half a dozen burials a year ... so were deaths so frequent in times past that this practice can have taken place ?
-
I have found twins in my family who obviously died soon after birth and were both simply recorded as Child Freeman. I have added them to my tree and didnt ever consider leaving them out.
Linda.
-
Even though it was common for children to die before their 5th birthday, their mothers feelings must have been the same as today, a profound sense of loss and these children would have been mourned.
I agree with other posts that if these children aren't included then we will never get a full understanding and feel for our ancestors lives.
-
I always include the babies who died, as they are part of the full picture.
Sharon, of course include your nephew on the tree. My daughter was born at 25 weeks, weighing about 780 grams. She thankfully survived and is a thriving (albeit tiny) five-year-old now, but I couldn't imagine her not being recognized if she hadn't survived.
Kath
-
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).
I would include Glen, he was your nephew and your sisters son. I think it is much better these days that people can talk about and remember their babes who did not survive.
I had a slight problem about including a child on our tree - he was born to my cousin's partner, but they split up when he was a few weeks old and things got nasty. Neither my cousin or his parents have seen the boy for about 9 years - I wasn't sure whether to include him or not. I asked my Uncle and he said Yes, add him to the tree as he is still part of our family - but it is upsetting for them as he is their only grandchild and they are not able to be part of his life. Maybe in the future things will change and the lad will get to know them.
Sooziecats
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ....
-
How terrible, I hope you've got them all.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I include them
I have found that many who have died have the same name as, sometimes, a direct ancestor. For example William born 1848 died within a couple of years and then his brother born in 1860 was also called William. The second William is a direct ancestor. One rellie I found was determined that the William who died was the direct ancestor. As they had found his name and dob and not checked for the rest of the family.
Including them helps a lot in the research
Carol
-
Carol,
That's a great point. I have a lot of that, especially on my Alsatian side. I guess it was the thing to do. My direct ancestor Caroline had a sister Caroline who died as an infant a couple years before mine was born, and that same family also had two Salomes (Sarah). And each generation and branch has done that.
Kath
-
Hi Kath
I think I've found in every case, in my tree, when a child has died in infancy a subsequent one has been given the same name. I imagine perhaps a lot of them couldn't afford a headstone and it was done as a tribute, in one way spooky but in another a living memorial.
I hate the idea of them being omitted as though they never existed. So please everyone include the babies. :'(
-
Tuscany
I too have found that to be the case. I guess they are family names because I have a couple of instances where at least 3 children have been given the same name before 1 survives to adulthood!!
Kerry
-
My husband is Jewish and their naming tradition is to name after someone who has died, to honor them, so I would say that was the case back then, on top of them being family names and they hope they continue. My ggg grandmother, who is named after a dead sister, is also named after her mother. She also named a daughter after herself, but I believe she died as a teenager. That's one of my brickwalls. Sadly, the name died out, as my ggg grandmother did not use it.
Kath
-
That's interesting ... about the Jewish naming system. Roughly the same thing happens (or certainly used to) among the Luo people around Lake Victoria in Kenya, where I lived. Most, not all, Luo names start with an A for females, O for males ... so my 3 daughters were given Luo names beginning with A ... (Atieno, Adhiambo and Achieng') and my son Obong'o !!! Not many white children can claim Luo names !!
BUT, and this is where the system gets a bit difficult to follow, a Luo child is often named after a notable local person who died soon before their birth ... so you can sometimes get men with apparently (because of their initial letter) female names, and vice versa !!
Nowadays, children are often given western names, so I know a Luo boy called Evans Owuor !!
Anyway, this is getting away from the thread ... but I found it very interesting at the time when I lived there ... and it does, like the Jewish system, carry on the name of someone who has died.
-
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
Hi Sharon
I think all babies should be added as should infant deaths, they are family after all.
Lesley
-
I include them..My gg grandmother always had 1846 as her birth on every instance I could find but I could never find a birth record. Eventually found a birth in 1844 so we assumed someone had date wrong....but have just recently found a burial of a child with the same name and address as the family in 1845. Looks like my gg gran was never actually registered? Does seem to explain why I never found her actual birth.
-
I have found that without exception all my Scottish, Welsh, English, Irish and German ancestors all used a naming pattern and it's the same naming pattern, which ended after the 1940s.
*The first son was named after the father's father
The second son was named after the mother's father
The third son was named after the father
The fourth son was named after the father's eldest brother
The first daughter after the mother's mother
*The second daughter after the father's mother
The third daughter after the mother
The fourth daughter after the mother's eldest sister
If a wife died before a child was given her name, then a second wife would sometimes give one of her daughters the name of the first wife. A couple of times I've had a child with an unfamiliar given name and have subsequently found that a child had been given the name of a benefactor, such as a man who had given an ancestor a job, etc.
When I wrote to the German church archivist asking if they could give me the names of my gt. grandfather's parents who lived in the Kingdom of Hanover, I sent them names of all his children.
*His first born son was William Henry
*His second born daughter was Edith Sophia
The archivist was able to reply within hours that
gg's parents were Henry and Sophia -
the first given names of William & Edith were witness names..
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ;D) 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! ;D
I have even searched newspapers to give them a proper date of death instead of just a quarter in which the death was registered.
-
Among my mother's things I found a piece of paper with the names, dates of birth and death (where applicable) of all my great-grandfather's 11 children, written in beautiful copperplate handwriting. From his first marriage he had a son who lived till the age of two, though his mother had died at his birth. From his second marriage came 6 boys and 4 girls. Some of the boys were stillborn, some died in infancy, but only my grandfather and the four girls survived infancy. All these children were given two forenames and from this paper I have their details. They are all on my tree because they tell the full story of my ancestors.
Sadly the only child of my son and his wife, a little girl, was born at 26 weeks and only survived for four minutes. Her birth and death had to be registered and she is buried in our local churchyard with a nameplate on her grave. We were able to hold her shortly after she died and visit and tend her grave from time to time. She would have been the same age as my daughter's little girl, so we can imagine what she would have been doing if she had lived. It was important to me that I had actually seen and held her.
I would always include these children on a family tree. They are part of the family's history, after all and every one of them is valued.
-
I always include all of them, they were absolutely part of the family. It surprises me that some people wouldn't.
Now the £2.50 certificates have been introduced I've bought quite a few death certificates for some siblings of ancestors who died young, it's given me an insight into the families. I recently found two brothers who died of smallpox just hours apart, I found two children on separate lines who died due to burns (neither made the newspaper) and one young man who was suffocated by a hay bale while farming in a field (also didn't make the papers). Also lots of sad cases of T.B. and some indicating malnutrition. It's sad, but I personally think it's important to remember all of the children in a family and to understand what the family went through.
-
Of course I include them. The tree is 'family history' - any am. genealogist who omits them wouldn't get very high marks from me.
The silly billies don't realise they may be omitting vital clues to family susceptibility to illness or gene irregularity do they?
My mother's sister had a cot death with her first baby (the next children grew to adulthood thankfully). The syndrome isn't in any line I've researched but I bet it's in the father's line somewhere - he died in his early 50's as he was getting on a bus to go to work and his son, my cousin, suffered his heart attack in his late 40's. thankfully he's still with us.
Rena
I include all of mine too.
My paternal grandfather's brother, David Hibbert, died at just over 2 months in 1884 in Salford, Lancs., and the cause of death was given as: "Found dead in bed, no satisfactory evidence of cause of death". The informant was Frederick Price," Coroner for Lancashire, inquest held September 3rd, 1884."
It seems likely he died of SIDS, sudden infant death syndrome, and likely there were many other children who did as well, we just don't know.
I also found out that his grandmother had had twins that were born and died between censuses.
David's mother also had twins, but don't think there is a genetic component as she was not related to her mother in law!
My maternal grandmother also had twins so I was quite concerned I might too, but it didn't happen.
Just as well, one at a time is plenty of work!
-
I include all mine too - where known at least, as i'm not aware of any stillbirths. How else do you account for the info on the 1911 census which details the number of children born? And the certificates show locations, cause and timeframe, all extremely important to understand the times they were living in.