Infant deaths - include or exclude?

[Raels]

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

[wheeldon]

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.

[Helina]

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

[meles]

I have also included them. Found three only the other day to one family - sad...

meles

[kerryb]

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

[sallysmum]

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

[dollylee]

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

[Sooziecats]

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

[01debbie]

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