This family is one of the sad ones.

[Finley 1]

I have just finished a branch that had 9 children and only 2 survived to actually marry and have a family.

The other 7 --- 4 died within a fortnight of Scarlet Fever and the other 3 .. assorted ages.

Now surely to goodness that is a 'story' that needs writing.. How on earth did the parents cope with that.





xin

[groom]

Sad. I followed my great grandmother's sister's family and found that she'd had 10 children. 8 died in the first year of life, one at 18 and the other survived. He went to Canada in 1912 and joined up in 1914 but was discharged a few weeks later due to a weak heart. A few months later he joined up again, was accepted and sent to France. I know for certain it was him, due to an unusual name and the fact he gave his mother's name and address in England as his next of kin. It must have been very hard for her having lost all those children and knowing her only son was fighting in the war. Luckily he survived and returned to Canada early 1919.

[Wendy2305]

It was a different world
My 3x great aunt had 5 children
2 died before they were 1
1 died age 5
1 died age 20
1 I can't trace
and my gt aunt died just after the birth of the last one who didn't survive either

[Top-of-the-hill]

   In the course of my local history work, I looked at a wealthy farmer, who had 11 children. All except one died at ages ranging from 1 year to 24 years. This was early 19th century, too early for death certificates, so I can only guess at childhood diseases, T.B. and accidents. I did a comparison of a labouring family who had 9 children at the same time in the same village and 8 of those lived to late middle age or old age. I suspect the son who survived was probably a bitter and difficult man - his wife left him in middle age, having a well-off family to return to.
    This sort of death rate was not common in this rural area - my great grandfather was one of 12, none died in infancy, 2 girls at about 20, and the rest carried on. He died at 87 in 1923.

   

[ThrelfallYorky]

It's so odd, isn't it? I have families who were fairly well-off, where several children died young, and families who were obviously not, where they all seem to have thrived. In some cases it might well be epidemics, in others housing / sanitary conditions, for even if reasonably well-off, towns and cities seemed to be breeding grounds for illness and infection. Others, "Ag labs" and their large families seemed to thrive - possibly better air, food and general conditions, even though so often we think of rural poverty....

[Top-of-the-hill]

  One thought that crossed my mind was that the wealthy ones spent more time indoors, but I realised that would not apply to a farmer's sons, even if it did to the daughters.

[medpat]

On my maternal line

My maternal grandfather had 4 siblings who survived to adulthood but on the 1911 census it states my great grandmother had 14 live births, other 9 died in infancy.

[kiwihalfpint]

Here's my sad little one.

M - 1861-1863 : 2 years
M - 1863-1864 : 10 months, born a month after the above died
F  - 1865-1865 : 4 months
F  - 1868          : Lived a full life
F  - 1871-1871 : 4 months
M - 1872-1872 : 3 months - born a year to the day the above died
F  - 1873-1874 : 4 months
F  - 1875-1877 : 2 years
F  - 1878          : Lived a full life

Teething, Bronchitis, Fever

Cheers
KHP

[Mowsehowse]

I don't think this theory would fit for Kiwi's fated family, but I often wonder if it might sometimes have been cases due to Rhesus disease which is caused by a specific mix of blood types between a pregnant mother and her unborn baby.

If my understanding is correct, when the first child's blood group is not compatible with the mother's, that is likely to render all future pregnancies non-viable, though now medical practise can deal with it.