23
« on: Friday 07 November 08 10:20 GMT (UK) »
Di, I have this too on two branches in particular. Supposedly, my gg grandfather had many siblings who all perished due to the potato famine. He, as sole survivor, had 7 children. Of those 7 children (3 girls and 4 boys), 2 of the boys married, and only one had children, my g grandfather, who had 6 children, 5 of whom lived to ripe old adulthood. Of these (2 boys and 3 girls), the 2 boys married. My grandfather had 4 (maybe 5 not proven -- sshhh) children and my great uncle had 2 daughters, who never married. From the 4 children of my grandfather, however, there are 21 children and I can't even count how many grandchildren and great-grandchildren now.
My other branch, the Murphys, is a little more complicated, but it all seemed to narrow down. There were 6 brothers, one never married and 4 were married at least 2 times. They all had many children, my gg grandfather having the fewest at 5. We are finding, as we research this family, that in each generation, there was only one or two who had children, and so on and so on.
I've always found this to be fascinating, even before I got so obsessed with genealogy, how my branch was it. I couldn't really explain it. There are a lot of nuns and some priests in these two branches, but beyond that, not sure why. Both of these branches were also quite educated, so maybe that plays a part in it.
Great topic. thanks for bringing it up.
Kath