Deceased children

+8 votes
111 views

I've seen a few comments on other threads about when a child should and should not be included.  

The person I'm currently working on died aged 2 in 1899. I have created a record for him and have quite a lot of info - birth and death certificates along with baptism and burial.  

I'm very conscious of causing any upset, but as he passed away over 100 years feel this is ok, but would like to check.  One interesting fact little Joseph's death has shown is that the informant on his death certificate is his 14 year old brother.  I've assumed it is because their father worked as a travelling salesman and was away from home at the time. We talk about kids growing up fast today, but that's one heck of a responsibility for a teenager.

regards

WikiTree profile: Joseph Hardwick
in Policy and Style by Alison Wilkins G2G6 Mach 2 (29.8k points)
Is there a Deceased Children project if not love to see one with nice tag to put on these little ones as Memorial. To me these little people need recognized as they are all to well forgotten about after times passes. They are in my heart remembered most highly. If there Group for them I like to join and place tags.

Billie

2 Answers

+4 votes
 
Best answer
Alison,

I think the sensitivity expressed elsewhere pertains to the deceased children of still-living people or where living people are still in the family.

Frankly, if we are trying to paint an accurate picture of a family, including deceased children should be a must.  I'm working on a genealogy of the town of Schwenningen, and I include all births recorded in the church records-- even those who were stillborn.  If I didn't, especially given the pre-1850 infant mortality rates, it would look like women took several years off between children.  Some of the women I'm documenting had 15-16 births; they were lucky if half of them survived infancy/childhood.
by Jillaine Smith G2G6 Pilot (775k points)
selected by Alison Wilkins
Very insightful, thank you Jilaine.
+9 votes
As your example shows children deceased without offspring do have something to contribute to the picture of the place and time when a family lived.
by Helmut Jungschaffer G2G6 Pilot (542k points)
Thanks for the answer Helmut, one little boy's death says a lot about the rest of the family.
Years later, but thank you for your comment Helmut! A couple of weeks ago I read a comment that said something to the effect that children/adults that died without offspring weren't important genealogical. While I tried to give grace to what the person was attempting to say, the comment still irks me. I have always made a point to include all individuals born into my family. If we, as genealogists, don't acknowledge their existence for future generations, they will be lost. Today I added my uncle, my dad's big brother, who lived 1 year and 8 months and I'm the one person who is teaching the next generation that he existed. So, yes, he's here on WikiTree. [[Lutz-3258|George Jerome Lutz Jr. (1935-1937)]]

Related questions

+6 votes
2 answers
311 views asked Oct 6, 2019 in Policy and Style by Nathan Kennedy G2G6 Mach 2 (25.9k points)
+1 vote
1 answer
+3 votes
1 answer
+2 votes
2 answers
87 views asked Nov 20, 2017 in Genealogy Help by Steph Meredith G2G6 Mach 8 (81.2k points)
+2 votes
3 answers
+3 votes
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...