RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: Helina on Friday 09 April 21 11:09 BST (UK)
-
Rhoda and Pharoah Criddle had 9 children. Two little girls aged 2 and 3 died, one girl and 2 boys where in the Stapleton workhouse age 15, 8 and 5 in 1901. Do not know what happened to the 2 boys but the girl age 5 grow up and married. Why? so many reasons, for example parents not been able to cope, financial reasons father was a Labourer, mentally/medically unwell The other 4 children remained at home. Wish I knew why and it certainly has got to me.
Expect we all have similar cases in our family tree
helina
-
Yes it does.
I have many examples in my tree, but one is my great grandmother Victoria Adelaide Pay, who, in the five years since her marriage at the age of 22, had had 4 children.
In January 1893, when she was 27, and her youngest child was 6 months old, she lost her first born daughter (aged 4) and her second son (aged 2) to bronchitis, within the one month.
She was pregnant again within a couple of months, and another son was born in March of 1894.
I have a photograph of her at this time. She looks very tired, and thin.
My grandfather - aged 3 at the time of the deaths - survived the illness that carried off his siblings except his baby sister.
How must the family have felt.
-
Yes at times and with some people....... when I was looking for my great grandparents, I found he was previously married and he and first wife had 5 children...now that was a shock, not only was he previously married but where were the children, why didn't I know those great aunts/uncles ( as I knew all my other great aunts/uncles) wishing my nan was alive so I could tell her she had 5 (half) siblings she knew nothing about
Then found his first wife died, found a child death, realised one of the children I did know but thought she was a full sibling of my Nans and I know my Nan always assumed that too....but where were the 3 others ???
It wasn't until I asked on here that deaths of the rest was found from 16 weeks old to 1 hour old, it made me feel really sad and it wasn't until a comment was added about the turn around in his life on the next census, in the 10 yrs he had remarried and they had 5 young children, they went onto have 6 and losing one son in WW1
Life 100 plus years ago was different, many children died before they were 5yr old, many women lost their lives in child birth, medication for simple aliments was not available, even being 'depressed' could mean you were locked up in a mental institution for life so on top of that people didn't talk about or share what had happened to them, it seems they just got on with their lives....
It reminds me of how lucky we are now (despite covid)
-
I can remember when I was researching one of the families on my husband's side. The couple lost many children at very young ages. I think they had about 12 children and most of them died.
I remember feeling quite dismayed and saddened as I kept finding the deaths/burials of these very young children.
-
Although, it may never be known now why some went into the workhouse and some didn't - I think it can help to put ourselves into our ancestors shoes and then to think what would I do in their situation.
It goes almost without saying that your ancestor would have been in a very tough predicament knowing that they would realistically only be able to support so many but not all. I know in their shoes I would choose the send the strongest children to the workhouse as I would imagine that they would be the ones most likely to survive in there.
I would be thinking about which of the children might be strongest physically and also which ones might be the strongest emotionally to be able withstand the separation. If you had a particularly clingy child it might break them emotionally whereas a more gregarious child might be more able to cope with it all.
I would imagine this way you would be able be able to justify your decisions to all your children later on in life and hopefully they would understand that it wouldn't be down to rejection of some and favourites with others. I think it would be a very tough call but I think it probable that your ancestor may have worked on the same rationale that I would have used - sending the most robust physically and mentally irrespective of age as a first criteria.
Also, an older child might also have a better chance of a work apprenticeship somewhere in areas where it might have been harder to find work - so that may also possibly have been another reason the 15 year old may have gone.
-
I think, perhaps, we have to remember a few things about the past:
1 No NHS, so if you were ill and hadn't got money, then it was the Hospital attached to the Workhouse for medical help.
2 No Social Security Benefits, so if you were ill and couldn't work, then NO income. Tough decisions to be made.
3 If your husband/wife died and you had no immediate family to help, then what to do about the children? I think it might have been quite normal that boys were "sent away", whilst girls were kept at home.
4 Remarriage - would your new husband/wife be willing to look after children who were not their offspring?
Of course, I could be "talking through the back of my head" :-\
-
Just to add that I do think that most of us will identify with subject of this thread. Thinking I wish I only knew why such and such happened. I think it can be very helpful to keep talking to others about such things as you never know when a plausible explanation for something might pop up.
I think I got a plausible explanation for something the other day from someone about something which has been puzzling me for years. I was only talking and hadn't really been expecting an answer when I was chatting to a woman I know.
Several years ago I saw my Dad's school admission record. He came from a staunch Roman Catholic background. However, I was very puzzled to see in the record that he was to be 'exempt' from religious instruction. None of the other children seemed to have this notation and neither had his siblings. I asked a member of staff at the archives about this but they couldn't think of a reason. I couldn't ask my Dad as he was long deceased.
Then the other day, I got chatting about it to someone and I also happened to mention that my Dad had almost died from rheumatic fever during childhood. This lady then said to me, well could that not be the answer - that he was too weak to go for religious instruction. Suddenly, this felt like a lightbulb moment. Of course, perhaps that would explain that he may not have been obliged to go back and forth to the Church as regularly as other children perhaps.
I do remember once that my Dad said sometimes a priest would turn up at school and question children about Church activity and if they could not sufficiently account for themselves then they were caned.
I agree with what you have written BumbleB. From another school record (log book) it would appear that a distant ancestor of mine (great nephew of my 2xGrt Grandfather) went to live with his Grandparents after his Mother remarried after being widowed.
-
I don't have any terribly sad tales about the ancestors I know most about - sturdy Saxon peasants that they were. At least in the late 18th and 19th centuries they seem to have raised almost all their children; my gr gr grandfather even received a certificate from the Agricultural Association and £4 (I believe) for bringing up lots of children without much parish relief.
However, in my local history studies I found a very sad story. A wealthy tenant farmer in the early 19thCent; he and his wife had 12 children between 1806 and 1824, and all except one died, not as I had always supposed, as infants, but any age between 5 months and 24 years. The 3 oldest boys all lived to their early twenties. Unfortunately this was too early for death certificates, so I can only guess at various diseases from measles to TB. (A farm worker family in the same area of the village at the same time raised all but one of their children.)
How awful for the one son who lived, who was one of the younger ones. He married a well-connected young woman, but they separated in middle age, so I suspect he was probably a difficult man.
-
2 thoughts.
I know of a moderately well-to-do family in Australia who had thirteen children.
The eldest and one other survived past two.
Having lost a sister at age 1h --
I suspect the cause of these deaths was rhesus factor incompatibility.
If a mother with rh- blood has a baby who is rh+ she raises antibodies to rh+ blood --
these attack any future babies with rh+ blood.
So the first baby survived and the later baby was either lucky or had rh- blood.
My baby sister was third baby with rh+ blood to a mother with rh- blood.
This has a medical solution these days.
Another family in 1903 the father died of a disease antibiotics would have cured.
The mum kept eldest son and her daughters --
sent 2nd child a boy to live with his grandparents -- 50 or more miles away.
Why him? -- a mystery.
regards
pH
-
I have a family in the mid 1700s who had 12 children, of whom only 2 survived to adulthood.
The rest mostly died under a year old, some within a few weeks of birth.
I have often wondered if this was a result of Rhesus incompatibility.
I am Rh negative, both my children are Rh positive.
I was given an injection within 24 hours of giving birth to countereffect the problems that would otherwise arise from the incompatibility
-
So glad for you Marmalady.
Our family's blood was tested after baby sister's death
so I guess we helped in development of remedy now given after birth of each child.
Glad others do not have the lifelong grief of my parents and by default us.
pH
-
The Rhesus factor was my original guess until I investigated further. My youngest cousin had to have a blood transfusion at birth (I think - 1958) as his mother was R neg.
-
Thank you Phenolphthalein for explaining the Rhesus blood issue for me.
I have always wondered about it as my Mum had that issue.
I am a regular blood donor and I am Rhesus + but when I first gave age 18 my card which you stuck the little donation slips in said in red along the top ‘positive donor negative recipient’ .
A very long time ago i asked what this meant and was given a detailed explanation which I didn’t understand. I
Just last week when I gave blood the attendant asked me if I had any questions so on impulse I asked her. We didn’t get very far as I mentioned the red type on the card and she said she had never heard of or see these cards.
It made me feel very old and I muttered that it didn’t matter and went through to the next room to donate.
Your explanation was so easy to understand, thanks.
-
If you are Rhesus positive, you can have a transfusion of either positive or negative blood without problems
If you are Rhesus negative you need to have a transfusion of negative blood.
It was the failure of some transfusions that led to further investigation of blood types and so the discovery of the rhesus factor
-
I have a family in the mid 1700s who had 12 children, of whom only 2 survived to adulthood.
The rest mostly died under a year old, some within a few weeks of birth.
I have often wondered if this was a result of Rhesus incompatibility.
I am Rh negative, both my children are Rh positive.
I was given an injection within 24 hours of giving birth to countereffect the problems that would otherwise arise from the incompatibility
I am sure in many cases the Rhesus factor was the case, however the further you go back the less medication and health care was available with little to no pre/post natal care and they didn't know then about it and with pregancy and birth lots of things can go wrong even now.
Now we have very good medical professionals, knowledge, medication and resources
-
I am sure in many cases the Rhesus factor was the case, however the further you go back the less medication and health care was available with little to no pre/post natal care and they didn't know then about it and with pregnancy and birth lots of things can go wrong even now.
Now we have very good medical professionals, knowledge, medication and resources
Oh yes, I realise that there could be many reasons for the loss of so many children.
But as I am Rhesus negative, I must have inherited it from somewhere!
-
All this talk of the Rhesus factor has reminded me to do something. I, too, am Rhesus negative, and in the 1% contingent. I have now decided that I really should carry confirmation of this at all times. And I am also wondering who I inherited it from, and also could it be a reason why I am an only child?
-
It can be tricky working out who you inherit Rhesus negative from, since it's a recessive gene. Our daughter is Rhesus negative, but my wife and I are both positive, as is our son.
My wife's father was known to be negative, but for it to emerge in our daughter, my wife and I must both carry the gene for it. However, as far as I know, both my parents were positive, so I can only guess where mine came from. A second cousin on my mother's side has told me she is Rhesus negative, so that's a possibility; however, my father was an only child, so there might have been something there.
-
I am sure in many cases the Rhesus factor was the case, however the further you go back the less medication and health care was available with little to no pre/post natal care and they didn't know then about it and with pregnancy and birth lots of things can go wrong even now.
Now we have very good medical professionals, knowledge, medication and resources
Oh yes, I realise that there could be many reasons for the loss of so many children.
But as I am Rhesus negative, I must have inherited it from somewhere!
My daughter is Rhesus negative, as is my mother. I'm not so I must be a carrier of the gene and if I look back on my direct lines I can see those 'potentially' who also could have been Rhesus negative who had a 1st child and lost those children born after the first one
-
I’m getting frustrated by the family line I’m tracing at the moment. I’m back to 1700 and trying to get back to the next generation. So my primary source is Paris records. I’m luck they are on findmypast. The surname is unusual but low and behold there is a William born in 1697 and another in 1698 both have different parents. Same parish. Now to play detective and find out which one is mine.
The joys of family history.
Regards
Panda
-
Sounds like my three Mary Brownings!
-
Yes it can get to me at times, it can be a chore.
Especially as I have a Smith ancestor who died in 1849, and said "Not born in county" in 1841. And a London ancestor who died in Feb 1851 and again, said she was not born in county in 1841. I cannot yet find a marriage of her to her first hubby but it was around 1810. She would have been about 20 then, I did find a likely one in Devon but the original marriage record says she was a widow. Wed by license but I think Diocese of Exeter and their records may have been destroyed during the war like many Devon wills were.
-
Yes it does, it's hard to see what people have been through.
What gets me is the stories you sometimes have to read between the lines. I've seen people who I suspect were struggling with mental illness, who seem to crash through life with no other explanation.
Or the family break ups where a spouse deserts their family. Very sad.
-
I especially find that the Irish relies frustrate me as they fled Ireland around the time of the potato famine and the place of birth is only ever given as Ireland. Also their surnames are very common which adds to the frustration. I also have Jones from Wales, usually called Thomas or Joseph :-\
Carol
-
The mention of mental illness reminded me of one branch of my family where it seems to occur. It was one family of cousins of my grandfather, and I had known from earlier research that one woman spent some time in a mental hospital, which I put down to possible post-natal depression. I then found her in 1939 in the Canterbury Mental Hospital, with 2 of her daughters, which seemed very odd and is on my list for future investigation.
I then discovered that her older sister had drowned under mysterious circumstances, having been suffering from "mental depression". (This was most carefully described in the local paper to avoid any implication of suicide.) Yet another sister was in Maidstone mental hospital in 1939.
The two sisters who survived seem to have come through it, as I have later records of them.
-
My ancestor killed himself in rural Suffolk in 1894. He used strychnine, and a neighbour said he always seemed a bit eccentric but never enough to kill himself. He had 2 children who were later admitted to the county asylum.
Another son moved to Essex in about 1905, I did hear some mills in Suffolk were shutting down so he must have got more work opportunities at Rankin Mill in Stambridge.
-
It definitely does. We all have our 'Who Do You Think You Are' sadness moments I think - it'd be hard not to feel for your ancestor's tragic stories.
My grandmother had an older brother that we didn't know about. He was illegitimate (although I think my great-grandfather was the father) and went to his mother's side of the family. He died at only 13 and he would've most likely gone to school with my grandmother. Did she know who he was?
My 3x great-grandmother killed her just-born baby. Reading the very detailed description of how she went about it... it did break me.
And another ancestor shot himself in front of his wife and daughter. He held on for two hours afterwards. That made me sad and angry, for him to do that in front of his family.
-
I wonder sometimes if we are prepared for all the sadness when we delve into the past. I cried when I discovered that 3x gt grandfather had died in the workhouse infirmary but felt better when I found it was used like a hospital. I know now why my Nan had a fear of the workhouse.
A young lady of 21 died in childbirth after many hours and convulsions, there was a scene in "Downton Abbey" of the same situation, so sad.
-
I wonder sometimes if we are prepared for all the sadness when we delve into the past. I cried when I discovered that 3x gt grandfather had died in the workhouse infirmary but felt better when I found it was used like a hospital. I know now why my Nan had a fear of the workhouse.
A young lady of 21 died in childbirth after many hours and convulsions, there was a scene in "Downton Abbey" of the same situation, so sad.
I would completely agree with you and I don't think any of us when we start have any understanding of how real those names on records become and how we get to know the person we are researching and invest in their life
-
I was correlating death registrations for my one-name study the other night and had to stop because it was all just too much.
First there was Ernest's suicide in 1931, as reported in the newspaper. The papers all mentioned that he'd fought in France, been injured twice and hadn't worked for a while. Then I looked harder at his family. When he died, he had a 2 year old child and his wife was heavily pregnant with their 2nd child. Both his parents were dead, his father having died 4 years earlier; Ernest was one of 8 children and aged 31 had already outlived at least 4 of his siblings.
Then there was a couple who married in 1858 and over the next 27 years had at least 13 children. 2 of these were buried without first names so I'm assuming may have been stillborn. Of the others, 4 survived to adulthood, but 3 of those were "crippled" and only 1 of the 13 lived to be a healthy (I presume) adult who married and had children. I suspect something genetic was going on here but GOK what -- not rhesus incompatibility, the pattern is wrong for that.
What finished the evening's work for me was E's story. I'd already thought about the terrible life her father had; he and his first wife had had 13 children of whom 7 had died as babies. 1905 was the nadir when the 3 youngest children (the 2 youngest were twins) AND their mother died. Dad entered the asylum not long afterwards (the surviving children went to the workhouse) and wasn't discharged until about 10 years later when he promptly remarried, only for his new wife to die 2 years after that.
E was the youngest surviving daughter and seems to have had 8 children of her own (though she never married) before dying in her 40s. Of those 8, only 2 survived to adulthood. So far so bad. The final straw was the dawning realisation that at least some of these children may actually have been fathered by E's father, ie the product of incest. This suspicion has arisen through looking at some of the burial registrations.
That finished the evening for me :( :( :(
Not really a "lighter side", huh?
-
The number of child deaths is absolutely unthinkable, isn't it?
I poked at a branch-in-law the other day. I knew the first two children were twins and one died aged 5, but the other one had a name that was reused later on. I had another look and found a death but the age was two years out. Then I realised the burial was one day before the twin I found. Upon looking at the burial register I found the entry I already had (Mary, dau of Richard ATTY) and one entry before was "Isabell and John, son and dau of Richard ATTY". Isabell was the one aged 7, not John. They had three children buried in two days :-[
On the topic of Rhesus- my mother had a rhesus conflict with my older brother so I was tested at birth and came back O-. However as an adult I became a blood donor and tested O+. I asked about this and got a vague response, potentially that the amount of rhesus factor that I carry in my blood is so small that the test in the 1980s couldn't detect it but they can now. They are obliged to label my blood as positive but I might well be positive to donate and negative to receive. I'm a bit disappointed not to 'still' be O- given what a valuable blood type it is for donation.
-
Seeing the mention of twins, I remembered an ancestor of my husband. She had 15 children, including 3 sets of twins. Only one of the twins survived the first year, and he lived to adulthood. 3 other children died under 2 years, and 7 grew up and married. (Including husband's grandfather!)
As far as I could tell, the mother of this family had 2 sets of twin siblings. Most of these twins in both generations lived for a year or so, but I suppose they were that bit weaker when it came to childhood illnesses.
-
I don't have very many infant deaths, or at least I haven't found them. Of my American gg-grandparents: 1) a family of ten; all survived to adulthood; two died as young adults [one in the Civil War]; 2) a family of nine; all survived to adulthood; one died at 35 of tuberculosis; 3) a family of seven; one died at age eight; the rest survived to adulthood; 4) a family of five; all survived to adulthood. I wonder if life was generally healthier in rural North America?
-
I think rural life in the 19th century was generally healthier - my family at that time seem to have raised most of their children. I have no illusions about rural poverty and living conditions, but they were probably safer that urban life.
The life span may have been longer as well. I have a press cutting from 1868 about four generations of the family working in the harvest fields aged from 94 to 22, two of them women.
-
I think rural life in the 19th century was generally healthier - my family at that time seem to have raised most of their children. I have no illusions about rural poverty and living conditions, but they were probably safer that urban life.
The life span may have been longer as well. I have a press cutting from 1868 about four generations of the family working in the harvest fields aged from 94 to 22, two of them women.
I have often thought the same. My wife had a distant cousin, who was sent up from London 4 times a year. The instructions were - "During the hours of daylight, come rain or shine, he was to stand in the garden for 1 hour and breathe. The same again during the hours of darkness."
It became a general threat in the family, by overworked mothers to their children - "If you two don't behave, I'll send you out to the garden to breathe!"
Regards
Chas
-
I think rural life in the 19th century was generally healthier - my family at that time seem to have raised most of their children. I have no illusions about rural poverty and living conditions, but they were probably safer that urban life.
The life span may have been longer as well. I have a press cutting from 1868 about four generations of the family working in the harvest fields aged from 94 to 22, two of them women.
In the countryside they would have had clean air to breathe, clean water to drink and often a bit of garden to grow a few vegetables and keep some chickens or even a pig.
In contrast living in the city meant polluted air & water and overcrowded living conditions.
-
In the countryside they would have had clean air to breathe, clean water to drink and often a bit of garden to grow a few vegetables and keep some chickens or even a pig.
In contrast living in the city meant polluted air & water and overcrowded living conditions.
Of course, Thetford was the exception that proved the rule. For the longest time the infant mortality in Thetford was higher than Whitechapel (which was one of the most deprived places in the country).
It seems the Aldermen approved the abstraction of drinking water DOWNSTREAM from where effluent was deposited. Locally, diarrhoea was known as the Thetford Trotts. Luckily for the town, WWI arrived with many hundreds of men and a new borehole was dug on the other side of town, away from the river.
Regards
Chas
-
"a bit of garden"
Well, they were farmers so they had more than just "a bit of a garden." They had a full range of vegetables and fruit trees. And they had livestock - a few cows, pigs, sheep, poultry. And they could hunt and fish if they were so inclined.
-
Sadly many women in my family have suffered from eclampsia, this condition has led to death of babies and mothers. The last being my grt grandmother who lost 3 babies and died in childbirth, one if her babies survived.
-
"a bit of garden"
"Well, they were farmers so they had more than just "a bit of a garden." They had a full range of vegetables and fruit trees. And they had livestock - a few cows, pigs, sheep, poultry. And they could hunt and fish if they were so inclined."
Erato, I don't think you are talking about 19th C. England here! Most country people were farm labourers rather than farmers, with a garden but few animals, and they certainly could not hunt and fish.
-
England isn't the only reference point. I did specify North America when I speculated that conditions were better in the countryside and I referenced four sets of American gg-grandparents. My grandfather described what a typical, small family farm was like when he was a boy in south central Wisconsin in the 1880s:
"The farming was largely subsistence. People took their grain to the grist mills and had it ground into flour. The grains taken were wheat, rye, maize, and buckwheat. Almost everyone had a patch of sugar cane [=sorghum]. There were squashes, pie pumpkins, rutabagas, beets, carrots and cabbage to be put away with the potatoes in the cellar. During the summer, apples had been dried, sweet corn dried, jams and jellies made, and some had begun to can fruits in mason jars. By my day, most every farm had an orchard with apple trees and sometimes with cherries and plums. Everyone expected to grow their own strawberries and many had currents, gooseberries, raspberries and blackberries. All farms had cows, fowls, turkeys and hogs; many had geese and some had ducks. The hogs were butchered; hams and bacon smoked in the smoke house, and lard made in quantity. Milk, butter and cottage cheese were produced in sufficient amounts. As an addition to the diet, most of the farmers did some hunting and fishing. Many looked for wild berries and expeditions were made into the scrub pine regions further north in the blueberry season. Most of the farms had a melon patch where they grew both watermelons and muskmelons. In the fall, hazelnuts and hickory nuts were sought and put away for winter use as was a stock of pop corn. Most every farm had sheep. Most of the wool was sold but, in many houses, there were spinning wheels and the women had cards and teasel. They knit socks, mittens, scarves, and caps. Wool was an excellent substitute for cotton in making comforters and quilts. Those who had geese plucked them in season and the feathers acquired made the best pillow filling."
-
Most of my Suffolk ancestors lived to a ripe old age, as others say, the cleaner air and very little pollution. I have been to several villages in Suffolk where my ancestors lived in the 1700s and 1800s, and they are very peaceful and tranquil. Easton, Letheringham and Hacheston in mid east Suffolk. One Easton ancestor was a labourer and gamekeeper in the 1850s. Most were millers, farm labourers or small time farmers.
-
With regard to why some people/families had to enter the workhouse, if it's at all possible then visit one: I know that several have been preserved and you can often find out a lot about the people that were there. the NT has the one at Southwell in Notts and it is extremely interesting to learn the history of actual people from the extant records. Some people would go there when they were out of work for a while: as they had to work to earn their keep, it was not too degrading and then, when they found work, they would leave again. This might happen to whole families too but the wives and husbands (separated while living there) would work and the children would be educated in the mornings and have to perform 'light duties' in the afternoon.
-
The Southwell one is really an example of the very very best that might be encountered. Very often it was a far more degrading experience than you suggest.
Also, often the "Workhouse" was for many, the elderly and the ill, the only option, and simply because someone dies in the Workhouse doesn't always mean that they'd been a long term inmate; the Workhouses were for many the only hospitals, rather as the monasteries had served several centuries before, until Henry VIII got at them.
-
Yes, I know Southwell was quite 'good' (would probably reach "Outstanding" under Ofsted rules!) but nonetheless, the workhouses did tend to keep quite good records and might help some people to understand why their rellies were there. All in all, it was a bad experience but in a lot of cases, much better than being on the streets! At least they would have a roof over their heads, if not much food/comfort.
-
My ancestor was in the workhouse and was admitted the day before he died, so he was just there to go into hospital so to speak. Another London ancestor entered the workhouse on an off inbetween 1885 and his 1889 death but he was 72 in 1885 which was a ripe old age back then so must have been unwell. He died in April 1889, so lived long enough to read all about the Jack The Ripper killings just 2 miles away in Whitechapel.
-
So sad, Coombs. Several people in my 5 trees (3 on my side, 2 on Himself's) stayed intermittently or died in the workhouse.
We keep saying "it must have been hard". Strangely, before lockdown, we discussed this at a Book Group I was running. We were reading 'Longbourn' which looks at life through the eyes of the Bennett family (they of Jane Austen's 'Pride & Prejudice'), and their perceptions of life. We were aghast at the 'chores' they had to perform and the conditions in which they lived and worked, but we acknowledged that we were looking at them through our own 21st century eyes. So, although it was 'hard' for them, was it as bad as WE think it was? Teenagers now cannot believe that people of my age (76) grew up in houses that had no central heating, baths that were used once a week, coal fires, no telephone, no television until 1960 (in my case), etc. etc. And they don't understand the concept of food/clothes rationing at all. Therefore, to a young teenager, our life must seem as hard to them as the lives of the characters of 'Longbourn' do to us.
I still stick to my theory that possibly life in the Workhouse was less arduous than life on the street as a pauper - but I am still grateful for living in MY age!!
-
So sad, Coombs. Several people in my 5 trees (3 on my side, 2 on Himself's) stayed intermittently or died in the workhouse.
We keep saying "it must have been hard". Strangely, before lockdown, we discussed this at a Book Group I was running. We were reading 'Longbourn' which looks at life through the eyes of the Bennett family (they of Jane Austen's 'Pride & Prejudice'), and their perceptions of life. We were aghast at the 'chores' they had to perform and the conditions in which they lived and worked, but we acknowledged that we were looking at them through our own 21st century eyes. So, although it was 'hard' for them, was it as bad as WE think it was? Teenagers now cannot believe that people of my age (76) grew up in houses that had no central heating, baths that were used once a week, coal fires, no telephone, no television until 1960 (in my case), etc. etc. And they don't understand the concept of food/clothes rationing at all. Therefore, to a young teenager, our life must seem as hard to them as the lives of the characters of 'Longbourn' do to us.
I still stick to my theory that possibly life in the Workhouse was less arduous than life on the street as a pauper - but I am still grateful for living in MY age!!
I agree, they did not know any different, as in they never knew that years down the line life would get better, and there would be computers, great medicines, better food etc. They never had them so would not know about them. Thomas Roberts spent his last 6 weeks in the workhouse as he was admitted in mid March 1889, his death cert says he died of dropsy and bronchitis aged 76.