Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere!



Go Back   Genealogists' Forum - We have branches everywhere! > Research > Family History General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-09-19, 23:11
Nell's Avatar
Nell Nell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,458
Default So sad

Getting back into the swing of family history now I am retired. I've just noticed the sad sequence of events in my gt x 2 grandfather John Purvey's life.

Between 1886 and 1889 (3 years) he lost his brother, his mother, 4 sons and a daughter. A daughter died before this and another daughter afterwards. All the deaths occurred singly, but what a ghastly period it must have been.
__________________
Love from Nell
researching
Chowns in Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire
Brewer, Broad, Eplett & Pope in Cornwall
Smoothy & Willsher/Wiltshire in Essex & Surrey
Emms, Mealing + variants, Purvey & Williams in Gloucestershire
Barnes, Dunt, Gray, Massingham, Saul/Seals/Sales in Norfolk
Matthews & Nash in Warwickshire
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-09-19, 01:34
Janet's Avatar
Janet Janet is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Niagara County
Posts: 1,985
Default

It's hard to fathom that from where we sit today. I hope you'll come across some more uplifting revelations too, now that you have time to look. Congratulations on your retirement, Nell.
__________________
My time and date


Janet (Niagara)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-09-19, 09:07
Olde Crone Olde Crone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,767
Default

Yes, family history can bring tears.

My 6 x ggm had 19 children. The first six died in the space of 23 days of smallpox. Somehow she pulled herself together and went on to have 13 more children, ten of whom died in childhood, one married but had no children, one disappeared from the records and one is my 5th ggf. She outlived them all including her husband and died aged 84. I cannot imagine what her life was like.

OC
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-09-19, 10:22
Phoenix's Avatar
Phoenix Phoenix is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,617
Default

I remember reading: The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800 by Lawrence Stone and disagreeing violently with his views.

He argued that since life was so uncertain, it really didn't matter who you married, since death would break those ties quickly enough, and that mothers invested no emotional capital in their children, since they were not likely to survive.

There would, of course, be some people for whom that might be true.

Lawrence Stone was born just after the first world war, so would have heard of unfortunate marriages amongst his parents' generation, and seen similar liaisons within his own. But I cannot imagine anyone who was able to make an informed choice not caring that their marriage would be desparately unhappy because they might be dead anyway in a few years, when it's the whole of the rest of their lives.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-09-19, 10:28
Olde Crone Olde Crone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,767
Default

I think that mothers were probably counselled to make no emotional.investment in their children but not sure how you enforce that! You have to be hard indeed to resist the charms of your own baby.

OC
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-09-19, 10:54
ElizabethHerts ElizabethHerts is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 9,274
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
I remember reading: The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500-1800 by Lawrence Stone and disagreeing violently with his views.

He argued that since life was so uncertain, it really didn't matter who you married, since death would break those ties quickly enough, and that mothers invested no emotional capital in their children, since they were not likely to survive.

There would, of course, be some people for whom that might be true.

Lawrence Stone was born just after the first world war, so would have heard of unfortunate marriages amongst his parents' generation, and seen similar liaisons within his own. But I cannot imagine anyone who was able to make an informed choice not caring that their marriage would be desparately unhappy because they might be dead anyway in a few years, when it's the whole of the rest of their lives.
I can't imagine many women/mothers writing that!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-09-19, 10:11
Nell's Avatar
Nell Nell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,458
Default

Child mortality was much higher years ago but I don't for one second believe that most children weren't loved and mourned deeply. Testimony about the first two Bronte girls who died young (Mr Bronte outlived his wife and all 6 of his children) and of one of the Carr family (Quaker biscuit manufacturers) nursing her young son as he was dying of diphtheria are more usual.

Mind you I am often struck at how many of my forebears had a child that died and then had 2 or 3 more all with the same name who also perished. I'd be tempted to change the name in the hope of changing their fortune!
__________________
Love from Nell
researching
Chowns in Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire
Brewer, Broad, Eplett & Pope in Cornwall
Smoothy & Willsher/Wiltshire in Essex & Surrey
Emms, Mealing + variants, Purvey & Williams in Gloucestershire
Barnes, Dunt, Gray, Massingham, Saul/Seals/Sales in Norfolk
Matthews & Nash in Warwickshire
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-09-19, 15:31
Merry's Avatar
Merry Merry is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Near Christchurch, Dorset
Posts: 21,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Mind you I am often struck at how many of my forebears had a child that died and then had 2 or 3 more all with the same name who also perished. I'd be tempted to change the name in the hope of changing their fortune!
Ooh, I agree. One of my families had around 12 children. All those not called Thomas survived to old age, but the four called Thomas all died as babies or toddlers. As soon as a Thomas died the next son got that name every time. I don't know why they needed a Thomas - no one else in the immediate family had this name. Like you, I think I wouldn't have wanted to re-use the name, especially after two Thomas's had passed away never mind three.
__________________
Merry

"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-09-19, 15:54
Olde Crone Olde Crone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,767
Default

Yes, no less than four Samuel Greens, one after the other. It gave me the creeps.

OC
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-09-19, 21:17
Lindsay Lindsay is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 898
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell View Post
Child mortality was much higher years ago but I don't for one second believe that most children weren't loved and mourned deeply.
Absolutely, Nell. A contact of mine sent me copies of some old family letters from the early 1800s. One was from a mother who had just lost the child she had been nursing, and her grief is every bit as overwhelming as you would expect.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:35.


Hosted by Photon IT

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 PL3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.