Sacha filted:

On 2012-10-19 00:33:40 +0100, "Don Phillipson" said:

Family trees of the 18th and 19th centuries seem to confirm the
normality of death before maturity. Some of my ancestors applied the
same Christian name to three successive children (because the first
two died in infancy.) The implication is that such families did not
feel they were "missing a child."

I've come across that several times in my family tree. I think one poor
family had three attempts to get a child called John, before
succeeding. It seems - in these cases - either an attempt to carry on
a family name, or perhaps a tribute to the child that had died. In our
own time, a friend of mine considered calling a new son after a
cot-death baby. She didn't.

I've heard that some bereaved parents did this as a folk protection against the
Grim Reaper taking away the new child; the idea was to confuse the spirits into
thinking that they had already taken this one....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

Peter James filted:

One grave, which I shall never forget in St Cleer graveyar near to
Liskeard, was dedicated to the memory of a girl who died aged 16 years
of age. It bore the following epitaph.

"Pray spare a thought as you pass by,
As you are now so once was I.
As I am now, so will you be,
So be prepared to follow me"

All food for thought. It was a very harrowing experience.

Somewhere in one of my several big boxes of slides is a picture of a headstone
of a girl who died in the century before last, "aged 15 yrs 10 mos" with the
additional line "beloved wife and mother"....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

"Peter James" wrote in message
...
Don Phillipson wrote:

"David Hill" wrote in message
...

A cousin of mine lost her daughter to cancer a short while ago.
She raised the following question.
A man who loses his wife is a widower, a woman who loses her husband is
a
widow, a child who loses a parent is an orphan. Why is there no word
in
the English language for a parent who loses a child?

Perhaps because before 1900 this was so common: most
parents lost at least one child to illness, i.e. bereavement was
normal and required no special word.
Back in the days of my youth, I took part in a Historical Survey of a
mining area in Cornwall, and one of the things we did was to survey the
local graveyards for the years 1720 -1890.. We were all struck by the
number of gravestones listing the names of children who had died in
infancy and we buried in the family plot. In one case, 13 children 11 of
whom died in infancy.
One grave, which I shall never forget in St Cleer graveyar near to
Liskeard, was dedicated to the memory of a girl who died aged 16 years
of age. It bore the following epitaph.

"Pray spare a thought as you pass by,
As you are now so once was I.
As I am now, so will you be,
So be prepared to follow me"

All food for thought. It was a very harrowing experience.

Peter


Part of the Masonic ritual states 'and death, the grand leveller of all
human greatness, reduces us to the same state'

Mike



--

....................................

I'm an Angel, honest ! The horns are there just to keep the halo straight.

....................................

"R H Draney" wrote

Sacha filted:

"Don Phillipson" said:

Family trees of the 18th and 19th centuries seem to confirm the
normality of death before maturity. Some of my ancestors applied the
same Christian name to three successive children (because the first
two died in infancy.) The implication is that such families did not
feel they were "missing a child."

I've come across that several times in my family tree. I think one poor
family had three attempts to get a child called John, before
succeeding. It seems - in these cases - either an attempt to carry on
a family name, or perhaps a tribute to the child that had died. In our
own time, a friend of mine considered calling a new son after a
cot-death baby. She didn't.

I've heard that some bereaved parents did this as a folk protection against
the
Grim Reaper taking away the new child; the idea was to confuse the spirits
into
thinking that they had already taken this one....r


In my wife's family tree every first born male is called Joseph, it's a
tradition that all parts of the family kept to it making investigating their
Family Tree "interesting" and has actually stopped me because I can't find
out which was which of the two born in 1826 in the same area!! Certainly,
consistently, when the first Joseph died the next boy was named Joseph and
I've even found a Birth Certificate that has a separate box which states "
name changed after registration" which I had never heard of before.
--
Regards. Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
On 10/18/2012 8:56 PM, Arcadian Rises wrote:

Wasn't a brother supposed to take care, even marry, the widow of his
deceased brother?

In the Old Testament, yes. Not all that long ago in the UK, it was against
the law to marry your deceased spouse's sibling.


How long ago was that? My grandfather's first wife died and he married her
sister - that was in 1929.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

"Don Phillipson" wrote in message
...
"GordonD" wrote in message
...
"Don Phillipson" wrote in message
...
"David Hill" wrote in message
...

A cousin of mine lost her daughter to cancer a short while ago.
She raised the following question.
A man who loses his wife is a widower, a woman who loses her husband is
a widow, a child who loses a parent is an orphan. Why is there no word
in the English language for a parent who loses a child?

Perhaps because before 1900 this was so common: most
parents lost at least one child to illness, i.e. bereavement was
normal and required no special word.

I'd also suggest that there's no easy way to tell if a family is missing
a child as there is no set number of children they should have. In the
other situations, there is: one spouse or two parents; any fewer and it's
clear something has happened, either a death or a family break-up.

Family trees of the 18th and 19th centuries seem to confirm the
normality of death before maturity. Some of my ancestors applied the
same Christian name to three successive children (because the first
two died in infancy.) The implication is that such families did not
feel they were "missing a child."


I didn't mean 'missing' in the sense of 'being aware of the absence of'. My
point was that if you observe a family unit consisting of the parents and
three children there is no way to tell if there had been a fourth child who
has died. However if the family consists of a woman and three children, then
it's immediately obvious that the father is dead (or at least absent).
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:54:54 -0700 (PDT), Arcadian Rises
wrote:




I agree with Mr. Friedman: a change in status required a special word.

Until what age can someone claim the orphan status? I never considered
my grandparents as orphans although all their parents died before I
was born.

Dunno, but I took my 85 year old mother to hospital the other
day,stopping on the way back to do some shopping it was hissing down
and nearby places such as Clovelly were getting a bit wet.
So I parked in one of the Parent and Child spaces so she didn't have
to walk too far . Probably not what the supermarket intended but there
were no ages stated on the sign.

G Harman

GordonD wrote, in
on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:59:27 +0100:

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
On 10/18/2012 8:56 PM, Arcadian Rises wrote:

Wasn't a brother supposed to take care, even marry, the widow of his
deceased brother?

In the Old Testament, yes. Not all that long ago in the UK, it was against
the law to marry your deceased spouse's sibling.


How long ago was that? My grandfather's first wife died and he married her
sister - that was in 1929.

It had been legal since 1907.

From Wiki http://morgue.anglicansonline.org/030817/

"Beginning in the 1860s, bills were introduced in Parliament annually to
allow marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but it wasn't until 1907
that the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act finally made it legal.
And not until 1921 (!) did the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act
make marriage to a brother-in-law legal."
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

In uk.rec.gardening R H Draney wrote:
I've come across that several times in my family tree. I think one poor
family had three attempts to get a child called John, before
succeeding. It seems - in these cases - either an attempt to carry on
a family name, or perhaps a tribute to the child that had died. In our
own time, a friend of mine considered calling a new son after a
cot-death baby. She didn't.

I've heard that some bereaved parents did this as a folk protection against the
Grim Reaper taking away the new child; the idea was to confuse the spirits into
thinking that they had already taken this one....r

I can imagine it being rather confusing for /everyone/, unless they
dismissed any reference to the first child from any future conversation!

"Nick Spalding" wrote in message
...
GordonD wrote, in
on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:59:27 +0100:

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
On 10/18/2012 8:56 PM, Arcadian Rises wrote:

Wasn't a brother supposed to take care, even marry, the widow of his
deceased brother?

In the Old Testament, yes. Not all that long ago in the UK, it was
against
the law to marry your deceased spouse's sibling.


How long ago was that? My grandfather's first wife died and he married
her
sister - that was in 1929.

It had been legal since 1907.

From Wiki http://morgue.anglicansonline.org/030817/

"Beginning in the 1860s, bills were introduced in Parliament annually to
allow marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but it wasn't until 1907
that the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act finally made it legal.
And not until 1921 (!) did the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act
make marriage to a brother-in-law legal."


Thank you. It seems a rather odd thing to ban - presumably prior to 1907 if
a couple were divorced it would be fine for the man to marry the sister.
What happened if the first wife dropped dead before the wedding?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."

On 10/19/2012 4:59 AM, GordonD wrote:
"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
On 10/18/2012 8:56 PM, Arcadian Rises wrote:

Wasn't a brother supposed to take care, even marry, the widow of his
deceased brother?

In the Old Testament, yes. Not all that long ago in the UK, it was
against the law to marry your deceased spouse's sibling.


How long ago was that? My grandfather's first wife died and he married
her sister - that was in 1929.

In Scotland, the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act of 1907, and the
Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act of 1921 made marriage to a
deceased spouse's sibling legal - so your grandad wasn't breaking the law.

On 10/19/2012 3:02 AM, Sacha wrote:
On 2012-10-19 00:33:40 +0100, "Don Phillipson"

Family trees of the 18th and 19th centuries seem to confirm the
normality of death before maturity. Some of my ancestors applied the
same Christian name to three successive children (because the first
two died in infancy.) The implication is that such families did not
feel they were "missing a child."

I've come across that several times in my family tree. I think one poor
family had three attempts to get a child called John, before
succeeding. It seems - in these cases - either an attempt to carry on a
family name, or perhaps a tribute to the child that had died. In our
own time, a friend of mine considered calling a new son after a
cot-death baby. She didn't.

I know of a number of cases where names were duplicated, but the first
child hadn't died. For example, my g-grandad had two brothers named Peter...

wrote in message
...

In uk.rec.gardening R H Draney wrote:
I've come across that several times in my family tree. I think one poor
family had three attempts to get a child called John, before
succeeding. It seems - in these cases - either an attempt to carry on
a family name, or perhaps a tribute to the child that had died. . . .

I can imagine it being rather confusing for /everyone/, unless they
dismissed any reference to the first child from any future conversation!

We can however approach this empirically. When family histories
offer no evidence anyone found this confusing 150 years ago, it is
fair to say there was probably no such confusion.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

"Peter James" wrote in message
...

One grave, which I shall never forget in St Cleer graveyar near to
Liskeard, was dedicated to the memory of a girl who died aged 16 years
of age. It bore the following epitaph.

"Pray spare a thought as you pass by,
As you are now so once was I.
As I am now, so will you be,
So be prepared to follow me"

All food for thought. It was a very harrowing experience.

Historians of art identify this as a peculiarly English tradition,
most commonly found in paintings as either or both of a skull
and the motto "Et ego in Arcadia" i.e. "I too was once like you,"
apparently rare in French/Italian/German iconography.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

On 19/10/2012 11:53, GordonD wrote:
"Nick Spalding" wrote in message
...
GordonD wrote, in
on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:59:27 +0100:

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
On 10/18/2012 8:56 PM, Arcadian Rises wrote:

Wasn't a brother supposed to take care, even marry, the widow of his
deceased brother?

In the Old Testament, yes. Not all that long ago in the UK, it was
against
the law to marry your deceased spouse's sibling.


How long ago was that? My grandfather's first wife died and he
married her
sister - that was in 1929.

It had been legal since 1907.

From Wiki http://morgue.anglicansonline.org/030817/

"Beginning in the 1860s, bills were introduced in Parliament annually to
allow marriage with a deceased wife's sister, but it wasn't until 1907
that the Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act finally made it legal.
And not until 1921 (!) did the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act
make marriage to a brother-in-law legal."


Thank you. It seems a rather odd thing to ban - presumably prior to 1907
if a couple were divorced it would be fine for the man to marry the
sister. What happened if the first wife dropped dead before the wedding?

Then she wouldn't be "The first Wife"