probabilities, again
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
singhals
probabilities, again
The Scene: Frontier America
A pioneer couple has seven children, two of whom die unmarried before
the age of majority. The other five all marry; one of those five dies a
few months before his only child is born; three of the five produce
large families.
The remaining child, a daughter, marries twice before she is forty, yet
has no children of her own. How likely is that? Until recently, I had
no cause to question it, it seemed unusual, but certainly within the
bounds of "possible". Information has now come to light suggesting that
there was a fruitful marriage prior to the two documented. This
development would explain some ambiguous bequests in her father's will.
That certainly seems a trifle more likely but it raises other questions
about those two later marriages (i.e., if she conceived once, why not
again?) which are known to be barren.
So, with the stipulation that anything at all is hypothetically
*possible* what's the sense of the group on the likelihood of
(a) a woman of the 1760s married twice but barren
(b) a woman of the 1760s married thrice but producing a single child of
the first marriage and none of the 2nd or 3rd?
[A quick review of the sources does not show a marriage record for the
1st known marriage, but the 2nd known is documented when she was about
40. Clearly no record of a marriage prior to the 1st known has been
spotted yet.]
Thanks.
Cheryl
A pioneer couple has seven children, two of whom die unmarried before
the age of majority. The other five all marry; one of those five dies a
few months before his only child is born; three of the five produce
large families.
The remaining child, a daughter, marries twice before she is forty, yet
has no children of her own. How likely is that? Until recently, I had
no cause to question it, it seemed unusual, but certainly within the
bounds of "possible". Information has now come to light suggesting that
there was a fruitful marriage prior to the two documented. This
development would explain some ambiguous bequests in her father's will.
That certainly seems a trifle more likely but it raises other questions
about those two later marriages (i.e., if she conceived once, why not
again?) which are known to be barren.
So, with the stipulation that anything at all is hypothetically
*possible* what's the sense of the group on the likelihood of
(a) a woman of the 1760s married twice but barren
(b) a woman of the 1760s married thrice but producing a single child of
the first marriage and none of the 2nd or 3rd?
[A quick review of the sources does not show a marriage record for the
1st known marriage, but the 2nd known is documented when she was about
40. Clearly no record of a marriage prior to the 1st known has been
spotted yet.]
Thanks.
Cheryl
-
Celia Mitschelen
Re: probabilities, again
"singhals" <singhals@erols.com> wrote in message
news:Kfidneu6GucbMDzfRVn-uA@rcn.net...
Sterility is not always the woman's problem. Maybe she was lucky/unlucky in
her choice of husbands.
Celia
news:Kfidneu6GucbMDzfRVn-uA@rcn.net...
The Scene: Frontier America
A pioneer couple has seven children, two of whom die unmarried before
the age of majority. The other five all marry; one of those five dies a
few months before his only child is born; three of the five produce
large families.
The remaining child, a daughter, marries twice before she is forty, yet
has no children of her own. How likely is that? Until recently, I had
no cause to question it, it seemed unusual, but certainly within the
bounds of "possible". Information has now come to light suggesting that
there was a fruitful marriage prior to the two documented. This
development would explain some ambiguous bequests in her father's will.
That certainly seems a trifle more likely but it raises other questions
about those two later marriages (i.e., if she conceived once, why not
again?) which are known to be barren.
So, with the stipulation that anything at all is hypothetically
*possible* what's the sense of the group on the likelihood of
(a) a woman of the 1760s married twice but barren
(b) a woman of the 1760s married thrice but producing a single child of
the first marriage and none of the 2nd or 3rd?
[A quick review of the sources does not show a marriage record for the
1st known marriage, but the 2nd known is documented when she was about
40. Clearly no record of a marriage prior to the 1st known has been
spotted yet.]
Thanks.
Cheryl
\
Sterility is not always the woman's problem. Maybe she was lucky/unlucky in
her choice of husbands.
Celia
-
ALIDA SPRY
Re: probabilities, again
<Patscga@aol.com> wrote in message news:8a.2836bcc9.2fd30b9a@aol.com...
Also, she may have contracted an illness that left her unable to have more
children or the same could be said of her husband(s).
Anything is possible.
Alida
In a message dated 6/4/2005 9:43:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
singhals@erols.com writes:
That certainly seems a trifle more likely but it raises other questions
about those two later marriages (i.e., if she conceived once, why not
again?) which are known to be barren.
A lot of us conceived once and not again. And in those days it was much
more probable that a birth could cause damage so that a woman would not
conceive
again.
Also, she may have contracted an illness that left her unable to have more
children or the same could be said of her husband(s).
Anything is possible.
Alida
-
Lesley Robertson
Re: probabilities, again
"singhals" <singhals@erols.com> schreef in bericht
news:Kfidneu6GucbMDzfRVn-uA@rcn.net...
Quite possible if she had a medical reason for not conceiving...
Damage during birth 1?
With the medical facilities of the time and place, it's quite possible that
she was either medically incapable of having a child for some reason. Could
be biological, nutritional, or even down to infection. Point (b) could be
fulfilled if she either had a bad first delivery with physical damage, or
she aquired an infection which affected her fertility. Don't forget that it
was only in the late 19th century that they started simple precautions such
as handwashing for midwives. Also, assuming that only live births show up
in the records - if she was of a rarer bloodgroup than her spouses, isn't it
possible that her first baby survived but subsequent ones could not go to
term?
Lesley Robertson
news:Kfidneu6GucbMDzfRVn-uA@rcn.net...
The remaining child, a daughter, marries twice before she is forty, yet
has no children of her own. How likely is that?
Quite possible if she had a medical reason for not conceiving...
That certainly seems a trifle more likely but it raises other questions
about those two later marriages (i.e., if she conceived once, why not
again?) which are known to be barren.
Damage during birth 1?
So, with the stipulation that anything at all is hypothetically *possible*
what's the sense of the group on the likelihood of
(a) a woman of the 1760s married twice but barren
(b) a woman of the 1760s married thrice but producing a single child of
the first marriage and none of the 2nd or 3rd?
With the medical facilities of the time and place, it's quite possible that
she was either medically incapable of having a child for some reason. Could
be biological, nutritional, or even down to infection. Point (b) could be
fulfilled if she either had a bad first delivery with physical damage, or
she aquired an infection which affected her fertility. Don't forget that it
was only in the late 19th century that they started simple precautions such
as handwashing for midwives. Also, assuming that only live births show up
in the records - if she was of a rarer bloodgroup than her spouses, isn't it
possible that her first baby survived but subsequent ones could not go to
term?
Lesley Robertson
-
Gjest
Re: probabilities, again
In a message dated 6/4/2005 9:43:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
singhals@erols.com writes:
That certainly seems a trifle more likely but it raises other questions
about those two later marriages (i.e., if she conceived once, why not
again?) which are known to be barren.
A lot of us conceived once and not again. And in those days it was much
more probable that a birth could cause damage so that a woman would not conceive
again.
singhals@erols.com writes:
That certainly seems a trifle more likely but it raises other questions
about those two later marriages (i.e., if she conceived once, why not
again?) which are known to be barren.
A lot of us conceived once and not again. And in those days it was much
more probable that a birth could cause damage so that a woman would not conceive
again.
-
Donna
Re: probabilities, again
I find the circumstances you describe as perhaps unusual, but very, very
possible. Come to think of it, I have seen similar cases in my own family
lines.
Donna
possible. Come to think of it, I have seen similar cases in my own family
lines.
Donna
-
W.E.Cole
Re: probabilities, again
"ALIDA SPRY" <a_spry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d4joe.5424$yS2.5386@trnddc07...
A possible answer could be that for some medical reason (illness, injury,
genetics, who knows..) this woman was able to have one child but not about
to conceive again. Keep in mind that during this time in our history,
especially on the frontier, is was very desireable to have large families
due to the high mortality rate of children and the need for a lot of help
building and running farms & such. A woman who couldn't have children might
find herself abdoned or divorced. There's also the possiblity that the
husband died before she could conceive.
news:d4joe.5424$yS2.5386@trnddc07...
Also, she may have contracted an illness that left her unable to have more
children or the same could be said of her husband(s).
Anything is possible.
Alida
A possible answer could be that for some medical reason (illness, injury,
genetics, who knows..) this woman was able to have one child but not about
to conceive again. Keep in mind that during this time in our history,
especially on the frontier, is was very desireable to have large families
due to the high mortality rate of children and the need for a lot of help
building and running farms & such. A woman who couldn't have children might
find herself abdoned or divorced. There's also the possiblity that the
husband died before she could conceive.
-
W.E.Cole
Re: probabilities, again
"Lesley Robertson" <l.a.robertson@tnw.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:rMednUY3nbSjIzzfRVnysA@infopact.nl...
aunts have never had medical problems related to births, but my last aunt
had 3 miscarriages before finally going full term and having her one and
only child, a daughter. This same aunt has been married twice and looks to
be getting married a third time, so she has a fairly similar history to the
historical lady in discussion.
news:rMednUY3nbSjIzzfRVnysA@infopact.nl...
snip
she aquired an infection which affected her fertility. Don't forget that
it
was only in the late 19th century that they started simple precautions
such
as handwashing for midwives. Also, assuming that only live births show up
in the records - if she was of a rarer bloodgroup than her spouses, isn't
it
possible that her first baby survived but subsequent ones could not go to
term?
Lesley Robertson
That is very true. My grandparents had 4 daughters. My mom and 2 of my
aunts have never had medical problems related to births, but my last aunt
had 3 miscarriages before finally going full term and having her one and
only child, a daughter. This same aunt has been married twice and looks to
be getting married a third time, so she has a fairly similar history to the
historical lady in discussion.
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: probabilities, again
"W.E.Cole" <wecole.nospam@ev1.net> wrote in
news:11a3hmpltd3jd93@corp.supernews.com:
OR that the infant AND the husband died of illness. I have a great-great
aunt who lost her entire family to the 1918 flu epidemic. Another
ancestral relative lost his family to an indian raid.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
If you are sitting, just sit. If you are walking, just walk.
Above all, don't wobble.
news:11a3hmpltd3jd93@corp.supernews.com:
"ALIDA SPRY" <a_spry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d4joe.5424$yS2.5386@trnddc07...
Also, she may have contracted an illness that left her unable to have
more children or the same could be said of her husband(s).
Anything is possible.
Alida
A possible answer could be that for some medical reason (illness,
injury, genetics, who knows..) this woman was able to have one child
but not about to conceive again. Keep in mind that during this time in
our history, especially on the frontier, is was very desireable to
have large families due to the high mortality rate of children and the
need for a lot of help building and running farms & such. A woman who
couldn't have children might find herself abdoned or divorced. There's
also the possiblity that the husband died before she could conceive.
OR that the infant AND the husband died of illness. I have a great-great
aunt who lost her entire family to the 1918 flu epidemic. Another
ancestral relative lost his family to an indian raid.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
If you are sitting, just sit. If you are walking, just walk.
Above all, don't wobble.
-
Lyn Nunn
Re: probabilities, again
Also she may have been RH negative and subsequent pregnancies resulted in
miscarriage.
<Patscga@aol.com> wrote in message news:8a.2836bcc9.2fd30b9a@aol.com...
miscarriage.
<Patscga@aol.com> wrote in message news:8a.2836bcc9.2fd30b9a@aol.com...
In a message dated 6/4/2005 9:43:49 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
singhals@erols.com writes:
That certainly seems a trifle more likely but it raises other questions
about those two later marriages (i.e., if she conceived once, why not
again?) which are known to be barren.
A lot of us conceived once and not again. And in those days it was much
more probable that a birth could cause damage so that a woman would not
conceive
again.
-
Charani
Re: probabilities, again
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 09:32:53 -0400, singhals wrote:
The woman may not have been barren but her husband may have been for
some reason. It's still a popular misconception (no pun intended)
that if a couple can't have children it's the woman's fault. Would
having children after 40 been a normal thing in those days??
First marriage: difficulty in conceiving/carrying to full term, death
of husband before the family could be added to.
Second marriage: medical reasons with wife perhaps after first birth,
impotent husband, death of husband followed by a (long) period of
widowhood.
Third marriage: as for second marriage plus age.
I wouldn't have thought long days in the saddle would have helped a
man much either.
(a) a woman of the 1760s married twice but barren
The woman may not have been barren but her husband may have been for
some reason. It's still a popular misconception (no pun intended)
that if a couple can't have children it's the woman's fault. Would
having children after 40 been a normal thing in those days??
(b) a woman of the 1760s married thrice but producing a single child of
the first marriage and none of the 2nd or 3rd?
First marriage: difficulty in conceiving/carrying to full term, death
of husband before the family could be added to.
Second marriage: medical reasons with wife perhaps after first birth,
impotent husband, death of husband followed by a (long) period of
widowhood.
Third marriage: as for second marriage plus age.
I wouldn't have thought long days in the saddle would have helped a
man much either.
-
Bruce Remick
Re: probabilities, again
I would imagine that most married couples from that period would liked to have
had multiple children. The fact that a particular couple didn't was probably
not their original intention, but was more likely the result of any number of
possible factors. Speculating which factor played a role in the case you
mentioned would be interesting, but probably will not lead to the answer you
want.
Bruce
had multiple children. The fact that a particular couple didn't was probably
not their original intention, but was more likely the result of any number of
possible factors. Speculating which factor played a role in the case you
mentioned would be interesting, but probably will not lead to the answer you
want.
Bruce
-
singhals
Re: probabilities, again
singhals wrote:
So, is it consensus that looking for a previously unknown marriage
before the two known is likely to pay off?
Cheryl
The Scene: Frontier America
A pioneer couple has seven children, two of whom die unmarried before
the age of majority. The other five all marry; one of those five dies a
few months before his only child is born; three of the five produce
large families.
The remaining child, a daughter, marries twice before she is forty, yet
has no children of her own. How likely is that? Until recently, I had
no cause to question it, it seemed unusual, but certainly within the
bounds of "possible". Information has now come to light suggesting that
there was a fruitful marriage prior to the two documented. This
development would explain some ambiguous bequests in her father's will.
That certainly seems a trifle more likely but it raises other questions
about those two later marriages (i.e., if she conceived once, why not
again?) which are known to be barren.
So, with the stipulation that anything at all is hypothetically
*possible* what's the sense of the group on the likelihood of
(a) a woman of the 1760s married twice but barren
(b) a woman of the 1760s married thrice but producing a single child of
the first marriage and none of the 2nd or 3rd?
[A quick review of the sources does not show a marriage record for the
1st known marriage, but the 2nd known is documented when she was about
40. Clearly no record of a marriage prior to the 1st known has been
spotted yet.]
Thanks.
Cheryl
So, is it consensus that looking for a previously unknown marriage
before the two known is likely to pay off?
Cheryl
-
Christopher Jahn
Re: probabilities, again
singhals <singhals@erols.com> wrote in
news:XfqdneTDI7UMgz7fRVn-vA@rcn.net:
Not really. The consensus is that it is not unheard of for a woman in
that time and place to not have any children. Not common, but not
unheard of.
If you have evidence, then certainly follow where it leads, but nothing
given implies that there must be an earlier marraige. My GGG didn't
marry until she was thirty. ANd it was definitely her only marraige.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
To iterate is human, to recurse, divine.
news:XfqdneTDI7UMgz7fRVn-vA@rcn.net:
singhals wrote:
The Scene: Frontier America
A pioneer couple has seven children, two of whom die unmarried before
the age of majority. The other five all marry; one of those five
dies a few months before his only child is born; three of the five
produce large families.
The remaining child, a daughter, marries twice before she is forty,
yet has no children of her own. How likely is that? Until recently,
I had no cause to question it, it seemed unusual, but certainly
within the bounds of "possible". Information has now come to light
suggesting that there was a fruitful marriage prior to the two
documented. This development would explain some ambiguous bequests
in her father's will.
That certainly seems a trifle more likely but it raises other
questions about those two later marriages (i.e., if she conceived
once, why not again?) which are known to be barren.
So, with the stipulation that anything at all is hypothetically
*possible* what's the sense of the group on the likelihood of
(a) a woman of the 1760s married twice but barren
(b) a woman of the 1760s married thrice but producing a single child
of the first marriage and none of the 2nd or 3rd?
[A quick review of the sources does not show a marriage record for
the 1st known marriage, but the 2nd known is documented when she was
about 40. Clearly no record of a marriage prior to the 1st known has
been spotted yet.]
Thanks.
Cheryl
So, is it consensus that looking for a previously unknown marriage
before the two known is likely to pay off?
Not really. The consensus is that it is not unheard of for a woman in
that time and place to not have any children. Not common, but not
unheard of.
If you have evidence, then certainly follow where it leads, but nothing
given implies that there must be an earlier marraige. My GGG didn't
marry until she was thirty. ANd it was definitely her only marraige.
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://home.comcast.net/~xjahn/Main.html
To iterate is human, to recurse, divine.
-
Donna
Re: probabilities, again
My GGG didn't
marry until she was thirty.
I second this. Somehow people have the idea that in those days people
married earlier. Not in my family. (And I was surprised at this when I
began researching.)
Donna
-
Huntersglenn
Re: probabilities, again
singhals wrote:
If you've got new information indicating that she DID have children
prior to the marriages that you already knew about, then yes, you should
look further into that. It's also possible that she had a child or
children without benefit of being married, or that if she was married
before the two marriages that you know of, then the child/children could
have belonged to the husband, and weren't hers.
My great-grandmother had a child out of wedlock, and after she married
my great-grandfather, the boy had to go to live with other relatives
(because my great-grandfather supposedly threatened to kill the boy) --
he first lived with one of his uncles and then ended up living with his
father, after which his father and step-mother separated, but never
divorced. So, someone casually looking at that family would first think
that the step-mother was the mother of the boy (the father and
step-mother were married when he got my great-grandmother pregnant),
when in truth, he wasn't.
So, yes, explore the new information that you've found, but keep an open
mind while doing so.
Cathy
So, is it consensus that looking for a previously unknown marriage
before the two known is likely to pay off?
Cheryl
If you've got new information indicating that she DID have children
prior to the marriages that you already knew about, then yes, you should
look further into that. It's also possible that she had a child or
children without benefit of being married, or that if she was married
before the two marriages that you know of, then the child/children could
have belonged to the husband, and weren't hers.
My great-grandmother had a child out of wedlock, and after she married
my great-grandfather, the boy had to go to live with other relatives
(because my great-grandfather supposedly threatened to kill the boy) --
he first lived with one of his uncles and then ended up living with his
father, after which his father and step-mother separated, but never
divorced. So, someone casually looking at that family would first think
that the step-mother was the mother of the boy (the father and
step-mother were married when he got my great-grandmother pregnant),
when in truth, he wasn't.
So, yes, explore the new information that you've found, but keep an open
mind while doing so.
Cathy
-
Phyllis
Re: probabilities, again
They sure married young in my family, and my gr. gr. grandmother had 19
children! What surprised me was the number of years of child-bearing in
those days . . . sometimes they were having children for 25-30 years.
Donna wrote:
children! What surprised me was the number of years of child-bearing in
those days . . . sometimes they were having children for 25-30 years.
Donna wrote:
My GGG didn't
marry until she was thirty.
I second this. Somehow people have the idea that in those days people
married earlier. Not in my family. (And I was surprised at this when I
began researching.)
Donna
-
Rick Merrill
Re: probabilities, again
Phyllis wrote:
You mean they childproofed the house but they kept getting in?!
They sure married young in my family, and my gr. gr. grandmother had 19
children! What surprised me was the number of years of child-bearing in
those days . . . sometimes they were having children for 25-30 years.
You mean they childproofed the house but they kept getting in?!
-
James A. Doemer
Re: probabilities, again
"Phyllis" <phyllisnilsson@buckeye-express.com> wrote in message
news:42A3792E.2070007@buckeye-express.com...
You should have seen them toward the end of that time though. Yeesh! That
is, the ones that actually survived that long. Lots of women died in
childbirth in those days, particularly the late life childbirths. On the
other hand, it wasn't unusual to loose a number of the children due to
diseases and accidents in those days, so people had a lot of kids,
particularly in farming communities.
news:42A3792E.2070007@buckeye-express.com...
They sure married young in my family, and my gr. gr. grandmother had 19
children! What surprised me was the number of years of child-bearing in
those days . . . sometimes they were having children for 25-30 years.
You should have seen them toward the end of that time though. Yeesh! That
is, the ones that actually survived that long. Lots of women died in
childbirth in those days, particularly the late life childbirths. On the
other hand, it wasn't unusual to loose a number of the children due to
diseases and accidents in those days, so people had a lot of kids,
particularly in farming communities.