Genealogy Chat

I was surprised to find that one of my families is recorded with 12 live births of whom just 2 survived on the 1911 census. So 10 out of 12 of their babies died at birth and early infancy!

That is a very high death rate when I compare it to all my other researched families so I'm wondering if that particular family was affected by the area they lived or a health issue?

All these children were born in the Southwark area (St Olave, St Savior, Bermondsey) from 1886. Is anyone else finding a striking incidence of infant mortality in their contemporary families, especially in that area?

My lot are from that area and have to say they seemed to breed like rabbits and I have my GGF with 16 kids - I think only one died.

It was certainly a very deprived area, but then a lot of London was at that time.

It may be that family had a particular congenital problem or were just unfortunate in that the kids died from various ailments prevailant at that time. If you could afford to, you could buy a couple of the birth certs randomly to see what it says?

Hi Heather,

We were already aware of some of the dead infants and have a collection of death certs for them. All fairly typical stuff including failure to thrive, enteritis, pneumonia, etc. Even so it was a real surprise to find that there were 5 more births.

The pattern I have noticed is that an older child would die in the quarter before the birth of the next. This suggests to me that the mother had been breastfeeding and that the child may have died as a result of being weened and made to eat and drink dodgy food. It is a pattern I have noticed across the families in my tree and across the centuries.

The previous generation of that family produced a large number of children but with only a couple of infant deaths. However, they were based in Wiltshire not London.

I used to have a link to a colour-coded map of areas of wealth and deprivation in London but have lost it. Could someone please tell me the website or remind me of the name of the chap who had made that map. Thanks.

I have found one family of mine with 17 live births and only 2 still living in 1911.

I have found some of them, all in the Somerset area.

The map you're after is the Charles Booth poverty map online at

http://booth.lse.ac.uk/

Unlike today, failure to thrive was usually attributable to malnutrition.

Dreadful isnt it. I guess poverty/lack of nutrition and generally being weakened would contribute. Im always amazed how few of my lot died and many of them were in their 90s and 80s when they did go.

My grandmother knew a woman who was continually pregnant but the babies rarely survived beyond a month. The woman would deliberately get pregnant as when she was expecting her TB symptoms would go. Each child would contract it in the womb and subsequently die. This must have been 1920's/30's

I too have quite a few who made it into their eighties and a great gran who reached 93. They were all poor working class but obviously had strong constitutions.

I've found my 3 x great grandparents who had 14 children and by the 1911 census, 7 had died, yet the children who lived, when they married, went on to have quite a few children!

Well, funny you should ask.

When I was about 11, I had to do a school project about someone in my family who had been successful. My family being labourers and cotton mill workers, when everyone else at this fairly posh school had musicians and MPs in their families, it was a bit daunting. But mum suggested I do my project on her granddad John Gradwell. I talked to my grandma, I got a good story about a working-class fella from Glossop who was instrumental in getting the trade union movement going, and in introducing an insurance scheme so that sick workers could get paid if they were ill. The precursor of the National Insurance System. I was proud to be related to this man. He was a member of the Royal Order of Foresters, and St somebody's at the local Catholic Church. What a star!

It was only about 3 years ago that I started on the family history research, and my opinion of John Gradwell went down like a lead balloon. He married a young woman, Sarah Jane, and killed her with 17 babies in 20 years. I wouldn't mind if they had lived. The first, third, eighth and seventeenth did. The rest died within weeks of birth, if not at birth. Sarah Jane died in childbirth. Aged 41. John had the good fortune to marry again within 4 months of his wife's death. His new wife was a good woman, and sensibly said to him "no babies". So I don't know what sort of marriage they had, but she brought up the four surviving children. The eldest died in WW1, aged 35, and the CWGC had his mother listed as the second wife of John Gradwell. I had to get it changed. And they did change it. She was not his son, but the son of my Sarah Jane.

All acceptable if your rellies lived in a poor area, but mine weren't that bad. They were in Derbyshire. Other families there of my ancestry had good strong kids, my paternal gg grandfather had 9 live children (not aware of any that died), two lived into their 90s, two into their 80s one died aged 106. Now which family should I have chosen for my school project?

Love

Margaret

Just sounding off a bit.

Ah Charles Booth, thats the one! Thank you.

The story about the TB symptoms going during pregnancy is fascinating. I really do not envy the women of the time and their constant childbearing role.

My family discovery from the 1911 census was that my g.grandmother had 5 sons, with only 1, the last born, surviving to adulthood Age at death varied between 2 and 16. I know there was a flu pandemic circa 1918, but all these deaths were pre this date.
I feel I have to send for the death certs, to find if there is a congenital problem.
One of my great aunts, different family line, sons all died carrying the Muscular Dystrophy gene.

Re Bermonsey, in Patsy Kensits ''Who Do You Think You Are', they discussed the poverty in this area.
My g.grandfether was a sanitary inspector (forerunner to a public health officer) in researching his and appertaining local social history, there were regular outbreaks of typhoid and smallpox around London, between 1886 and 1905. Interestingly he wrote an article on how inportant it was to 'Wash Your Hands' related to hygeine issues. How little we have moved on, when the NHS continues to remind us of the same.

I Have a family who also came from a deprived area of Newcastle upon Tyne. They had 7 children and only 2 of those survived into adulthood. I do not have the death certs for reason of the death but interestingly all the death occured under the age of 2. And one of the surviving children was born after they moved out of the deprived area. I am wondering if there could be something genetic going on or whether it is just down to bad luck?

Russell