On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:14:11 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
wrote:

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.

As the majority of people would have been illiterate the form in which
names appeared in writing would have been irrelevant. In speech there
would have been ways of making clear who was being spoken about if it
was not obvious in context. Those colloquial forms would probably not
have made it into written records.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

On Oct 18, 7:35*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:
"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.

Especially infant deaths. That's why children born in January were not
registered until April, to make sure they made it through the winter.
Or children born during any other time of the year were not registered
for at least one month because the paper of the birth certificate was
quite expensive and parents saw no point to spend the money for only a
few months.

For this reason I suspect that most birthdays of famous people are
inaccurate. Also those of the ancestors recorded in our family trees.
According to some witnesses, one of my grandfathers was born in
"spring time" (in the northern hemisphere) but his birth certificate
indicates "Fifteen of October"

On Oct 19, 8:20*am, "Don Phillipson" wrote:
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.

True. They could refer to "the late John" and "the living John" Also,
"Jessica the old maid" or "The stuttering Jim", "the limping Howard",
"the dimwitted Eddie" to distinguish them from their namesakes in
those pre-PC ages.

On Oct 19, 2:52*am, (Peter James) wrote:
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"


It could go both ways: for those who believe in reincarnation those
verses may sound like a funeral incantation addressed to the deceased.

"GordonD" wrote in message
...
"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 presumably she wasn't a wife!

--
--

http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

Le 19/10/2012 10:59, GordonD a écrit :
"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.

The same for me ca 1935, in Brittany.

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
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.


Thanks!
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

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

"Ophelia" wrote in message
...


"GordonD" wrote in message
...
"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 presumably she wasn't a wife!


Hi, O! Didn't know you hung out here (or are you in gardening?)

I meant, if the first (divorced) wife died before the wedding then the
wife-to-be would then fall under the Deceased Wife's Sister ban.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

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

"Lewis" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes, the word for a parent who'd lost a child was "parent".

In researching the family tree a couple of decade ago I came across one
ancestor who had 3 wives, all three died in childbrith, and in total
they had 21 children. *TWO* of those children lived to adulthood.
Granted, those numbers are a bit extreme.

Another ancestor whose name I can't recall named each of his 4 sons
after himself (ie John Smith III),

George Foreman named all six of his sons after himself.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

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

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

"S 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 Wikihttp://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."

Was it a requirement for the former spouse to be deceased?
Couldn't you simply divorce your wife and marry her sister?
Or did that require a separate act perhaps?
abc

abc wrote, in
on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:25:38 +0200:

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

"S 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 Wikihttp://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."

Was it a requirement for the former spouse to be deceased?
Couldn't you simply divorce your wife and marry her sister?
Or did that require a separate act perhaps?

The word 'Deceased' actually means something you know.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

Nick Spalding wrote:
abc wrote,
on Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:25:38 +0200:

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

"S 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 Wikihttp://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."

Was it a requirement for the former spouse to be deceased?
Couldn't you simply divorce your wife and marry her sister?
Or did that require a separate act perhaps?

The word 'Deceased' actually means something you know.

It certainly does. But it seems strange in the context.

In fact, a law to specifically allow something seems strange. Presumably
there was a previous law no.1 in effect to disallow such marriages, or
the act to allow them wouldn't have been needed in the first place.

Wouldn't the change then be better described as an abolition of law 1,
rather than as a new law allowing what law 1 forbade?

abc

"GordonD" wrote in message
...

Hi, O! Didn't know you hung out here (or are you in gardening?)

You might be surprised where I hang out ... *mysterious wink*


I meant, if the first (divorced) wife died before the wedding then the
wife-to-be would then fall under the Deceased Wife's Sister ban.

Well, more knowledgeable people here than I will be sure to give you an
answer

--
--

http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

S Viemeister filted:

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...

That's happened a few times in television history too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_McCoys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_adv..._pete_and_pete

.....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

On 10/19/2012 4:25 PM, abc wrote:
Nick Spalding wrote:

"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."

Was it a requirement for the former spouse to be deceased?
Couldn't you simply divorce your wife and marry her sister?
Or did that require a separate act perhaps?


http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/history.pdf

"It does not apply in cases of divorce where the former spouse is still
living."