Not very productive!

[zetlander]

My great grandfather was married three times and fathered 11 children.

the next generation these 11 children produced 7 children between them -- 

these 7 children produced a mere 7 children between them.  (I am one of these 7)

[Andrew Tarr]

I've mentioned it before - but my grandmother had four sisters, and the five of them produced two daughters altogether, who each had one child.  That cousin of mine did not marry.  My grandmother also had four brothers, two of whom managed a few more.

[Thornwood]

At least it's making it easier for future genealogists, less people to trace!!

[Gillg]

My father-in-law was one of 11 children, my mother-in-law one of 14 (the last two were twins!), both born in the early 1900s.  All of their siblings married, some had no children, none had more than two children.  I guess birth control and their knowledge of the problems associated with large families prevailed.

[bykerlads]

In my family, there was a quick and steep decline in the size of families from the 1920's onwards.
Great-aunts and uncles who had been members of families with 10-15 children, produced none or just one or two off-spring. Though one of my grandmothers had 5, the other had only one.
Then as now, producing small numbers of children when the parents are mature and prosperous enough to bring them up properly has a profoundly marked effect on the prosperity of the family and the future prospects of the children. Huge social mobility ensued.
Glaringly obvious but we still see today children whose life-chances are severely impeded simply because their parents are too immature and impoverished to give them a decent start in life.
No excuse for it nowadays! If they could limit their families in 1920, folk certainly should be able to do it now.

[pharmaT]

In my family, there was a quick and steep decline in the size of families from the 1920's onwards.
Great-aunts and uncles who had been members of families with 10-15 children, produced none or just one or two off-spring. Though one of my grandmothers had 5, the other had only one.
Then as now, producing small numbers of children when the parents are mature and prosperous enough to bring them up properly has a profoundly marked effect on the prosperity of the family and the future prospects of the children. Huge social mobility ensued.
Glaringly obvious but we still see today children whose life-chances are severely impeded simply because their parents are too immature and impoverished to give them a decent start in life.
No excuse for it nowadays! If they could limit their families in 1920, folk certainly should be able to do it now.

You cannot ensure prosperity at any age.  A couple could obtain what they believe to be a stable financial base, start a family then something or things can happen that lead them to lose that financial security.  Yes, that will influence the child or children's prospects but it does not mean that the parents were irresponsible in starting their family.

[Andrew Tarr]

You cannot ensure prosperity at any age.  A couple could obtain what they believe to be a stable financial base, start a family then something or things can happen that lead them to lose that financial security.  Yes, that will influence the child or children's prospects but it does not mean that the parents were irresponsible in starting their family.

We've discussed this topic before.  I'm not sure how much prosperity came into it, until families could get reliable forms of contraception.  Not long before that, children arrived fairly steadily because there was a good chance many would not survive infancy.  Those who worked on the land needed at least two sons to maintain things; any 'spares' had to seek fortunes elsewhere, probably in the towns, where labour could usually be absorbed.  The girls often became menials of some sort until one of the men needed a wife to repeat the cycle.

I think some men looked for a more mature woman to limit the size of the family - I've found a few examples of that in my tree.  (of course there may have been some wild oats sown by then ....)

[Gillg]

My grandfather was one of 10 children.  Sadly he was the only surviving boy out of 6, the other boys having died in infancy or having been stillborn.  The four girls all survived.  This was not unusual in the late 1800s and perhaps accounted for the large families.

[cristeen]

My husbands g grandfather was born 1829 and one of  twelve known children (there are some large gaps between some baptisms, so maybe more) He had fifteen children, one with first wife, second wife had fourteen that I have found (from the age of 18 to 46) with no major gaps except towards the end. Nine of those children went on to have families but none larger than six as far as I know. Of those fifteen two died in infancy (one was a twin, later pregnancy), one aged 7, one aged 22 and the saddest, last born, an epileptic, was admitted to county asylum at 15years after his mother died in 1900 and died there aged 22.
So yes definitely less productive but not too surprising really