Not very productive!

[coombs]

My 3xgreat gran was one of 8 children. She and a sister were the only 2 who had children themselves. 4 of them did in infancy, one was killed in India and the other remained childless.

[Rosinish]

A point I think which has been missed is the fact that Catholics were more inclined to have larger families for obvious reasons after the introduction of contraceptives.

Annie

[pharmaT]

In one line of my family (paternal) I was surprised at how small the families were going back into the 1800s, a time when I'd have expected bigger families.  Grandfather only child in 1905, his father (b1878) having only one sibling.

And Andrew my comment about not being able to guarantee prosperity was in reply to byker's comment, specifically:

"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."

[JAKnighton]

It's very interesting how this happens, I am descended from many families who had 10-15 children, many surviving to adulthood, but when it comes to tracing their descendants many of those children either had very few or no children of their own. In a lot of cases these lines eventually die out.

The specific case I always tell my family is that my 3x great grandfather was one of fourteen children, ten of them boys, and yet he is the only common ancestor of people in our area who shares our surname.

[JACK GEE]

My GGgrandfather Fred Herweg came to Australia in 1872 from Woltwiesche in Germany and fathered 13 children. Of these only 2 were girls. By 1927 when the last of my mothers generation was born this name was bred out of existance in 3 generations.

Jack Gee

[bykerlads]

Just had acloser look at one side of my family:
Very striking to see that although my gran had 5 children, her other 9 siblings only produced two children in total.
Some, including 3 brothers, never wed, others had none or just one child.
A easy to explain why her sisters never found husbands post WW1, but less clear why her brothers remained single, at a time when men were in short supply.
I guess that my gran was able to enjoy and thrive on maternity because she had a lot of help in the home from her spinster sisters.

[JAKnighton]

Apparently after studying the genetic code of humans scientists concluded that only 20% of men who ever existed have contributed to the human genome. Maybe we're seeing why this is the case?

[pharmaT]

Apparently after studying the genetic code of humans scientists concluded that only 20% of men who ever existed have contributed to the human genome. Maybe we're seeing why this is the case?

When you think about it does make sense (to me anyway).  Not all men have children.  Those that do it is possible that their children, grandchildren etc didn't have children so there is none of their DNA existing today.  Add into that the theoretical possibility that over many generations it would be possible to have descendents who don't share any of your DNA.