Author Topic: Large Family, do they run in the family?  (Read 1549 times)

Offline macwil

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 412
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Large Family, do they run in the family?
« on: Friday 13 December 19 02:00 GMT (UK) »
A couple in one of my trees had 13 children, of those one daughter had 10, another had 7 and a third daughter and a son had 5 each, there were three other grandchildren for a grand total of 30.
That's if I've found them all.

EDIT: Add another 8, just found a 1911 census for a son.
AND another 7 for another son.

Total is now 45. (and counting?)
Active links are now (after 13/04/2018) indicated by bold red italics. Just click on them.
The only stupid question is the one not asked

WILSON; Lancs, Lanrks.
BERRY; Lancs.
BORASTON; Salop, Worcs,
TYLER; Salop, Herefords.

Offline medpat

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,343
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Large Family, do they run in the family?
« Reply #1 on: Friday 13 December 19 08:22 GMT (UK) »
My 4th gt grandparents (born 1790s) had 10 children and just over 70 grandchildren. Many with same family names ::) but GRO MMN has made it easier to sort out and put the children in the correct families. :)
GEDmatch M157477

Offline Flattybasher9

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,351
  • Manners cost nothing, and are worth the effort.
    • View Profile
Re: Large Family, do they run in the family?
« Reply #2 on: Friday 13 December 19 09:05 GMT (UK) »
No TV. What else could they have done??

Malky

Offline Skoosh

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,725
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Large Family, do they run in the family?
« Reply #3 on: Friday 13 December 19 09:15 GMT (UK) »
We take the pension for granted, back in the day a large family was a safeguard against the Poorhouse!

Skoosh.


Offline Jebber

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,038
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Large Family, do they run in the family?
« Reply #4 on: Friday 13 December 19 09:35 GMT (UK) »
Lack of contraception played a great part in determining the size if families.

Also, women were at the mercy of their husbands, many of whom demanded their conjugal rights regardless of the possible outcome.
CHOULES All ,  COKER Harwich Essex & Rochester Kent 
COLE Gt. Oakley, & Lt. Oakley, Essex.
DUNCAN Kent
EVERITT Colchester,  Dovercourt & Harwich Essex
GULLIVER/GULLOFER Fifehead Magdalen Dorset
HORSCROFT Kent.
KING Sturminster Newton, Dorset. MONK Odiham Ham.
SCOTT Wrabness, Essex
WILKINS Stour Provost, Dorset.
WICKHAM All in North Essex.
WICKHAM Medway Towns, Kent from 1880
WICKHAM, Ipswich, Suffolk.

Offline Andrew Tarr

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,768
  • Wanted: Charles Percy Liversidge
    • View Profile
Re: Large Family, do they run in the family?
« Reply #5 on: Friday 13 December 19 09:45 GMT (UK) »
Lack of contraception played a great part in determining the size if families.  Also, women were at the mercy of their husbands, many of whom demanded their conjugal rights regardless of the possible outcome.
And don't forget that ministers were urging them regularly to go forth and multiply!  And until the 20th century, industrialised towns could usually absorb manual labourers and provide employment.

One factor that varied a lot was the age at which a woman married - I think that does tend to run in families.  Very rarely a family manages six concurrent generations, which calls for a marriage age of 20 or less.  My family tended to marry around 30, and some of the men married an older woman, which kept numbers down a bit.
Tarr, Tydeman, Liversidge, Bartlett, Young

Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,886
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Large Family, do they run in the family?
« Reply #6 on: Friday 13 December 19 09:47 GMT (UK) »
Having many children to look after them in their old age - this attitude probably still exists in some places?
Having lots of children to follow the same faith and increase the number in the congregation, (so for religious reasons) - probably still exists in some places?
Lack of knowledge on how to prevent having large families - likely to still be the case in some places?
A need for men to prove their virility - probably still the case in some places?

Offline Andrew Tarr

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,768
  • Wanted: Charles Percy Liversidge
    • View Profile
Re: Large Family, do they run in the family?
« Reply #7 on: Friday 13 December 19 09:55 GMT (UK) »
Having many children to look after them in their old age - this attitude probably still exists in some places? 
Not sure that this is near the top of a young bride's wish-list ?   ???  Perhaps comes later if the score is only one or two ....
Tarr, Tydeman, Liversidge, Bartlett, Young

guest189040

  • Guest
Re: Large Family, do they run in the family?
« Reply #8 on: Friday 13 December 19 10:03 GMT (UK) »
In my Wife’s tree her GG Grandfather had 18 children by 4 Wives.

Her Grandad was the seventh Son of a Seventh Son.