Genealogy Chat

Well I thank you all for working along with me and I think it does seem that this couple had a number of kids who died. I just put a reference on my ft program to try to find these poor little ones just so they have a mention for posterity. Thanks guys, now where did I put that zimmer frame ............................

Heather I haven't yet read all the replies to this thread but thought I would let you know that I have one family with children 8 born between 1812 and 1826, only 3 of whom survived into adulthood. Lynne

lol Chris!! Merry

Aaaargh, nooooooooooooooooooooooo. No there was actually a message in which Chris said perhaps a child had previously been called Catherine and died. Which was my thought too. Dont know where it disappeared to?????????? It WAS there, honest. And yes, Im sure its the same Catherine all along. I guess she did lose the kids. Sad eh. Then her daughter loses 2 little girls (at least) and dies herself by the time she was 31. It was in the east end so yep, lots of possible eperdemics to wipe out young lives.

Who's Chris?? Another senior moment???! Merry

Yes Chris, that was my thought, thats why I wondered if there had been a lot of kids dying. As I said, Mary Ann went on to marry my GGFx3 and she died between the 1851-1861 censuses along with two little girls they had.

If anyone was doubting that Catherine was the mother of all the children: This makes it very likely: MARY ANN WYLES Christening: 02 DEC 1832 St George The Martyr, Southwark, London, England Parents: Father: WILLIAM WYLES Mother: CATHERINE Messages: Extracted birth or christening record for the locality listed in the record. Nothing for the other two. Maybe Catherine had a fertility/pregnancy recurrent problem? Maybe she lost babies before term, or perhaps there was a genetic problem that caused her to lose sons?? Merry

Don't suppose you are ever going to answer this one, barring going back and asking them. Were there any 'fevers' going around then which could have claimed the younger members of the families---just a thought. Have you looked under the deaths in Ancestry to see if you could match some children up with these as parents--long shot. Gloria x

Though Brenda, with dad and mum upholsterers and later Mary Ann, I would have thought they werent that hard up - and then Mary Ann marries the boss. I guess I will find out in a decade or sos time. May have been the same illness that actually wiped out two of Mary Annes daughters by the 1861 census and her come to that.

No Gloria, seems like the same wife as originally. As I said, I have seen quite often the first child named after gran or grandad so Im not worried about that, but its that gap that niggles at me. Ive just looked at the index for 1851 London and there is another family of Wyles in the next parish with a father called Daniel. There is about 6 kids with them that night, 2 both shown as aged 18 (mind you, boy there are some mistakes on ages in the 1851! - Mary Ann is shown as 12 and a upholsteress on the 1851 but was 8 10 years earlier and 20 two years later when she married my GGF3). So I wondered if the two 18 year olds were twins, or born close enough to look same age on a census or whether a cousin was staying there? mmmm

Hi Heather I have a family like that - gaps of 6-7 years between the children. The poor mother lost about six daughters. Sometimes when they were babies, sometimes when they were 2 or 3 yrs old. It must have been heart breaking. I have also seen families where only oldest and youngest survive. I assume the mother was so malnourished that she could not breast feed the elder child as the babies always seemed to die just beyond infancy, when the next child had arrived. She presumably was healthy when the eldest was born, and had thought she was safely into the menopause when the last one arrived.

Do we know if he was married before? If so couldn't Mary Ann be the child from the first marriage? Still doesn't exlpain why Catherine did not name her eldest daughter after herself--if that makes sense. Don't want to think about losing so many children. Gloria x

Yes, thats what I meant about Catherine being named as the youngest one. Though Id accept that maybe the first one would be named after a nan on either side. And there is 11 years or so between the first and second which would in theory give at least 6 kids. Surely they must be somewhere else that night, they couldnt have lost that many kids.

Hi Heather, just a point in no particular direction, don't they usually call their eldest daughter after the mother, not the third one. Gloria x

they could be staying with/visiting relatives, or the father could have been ahem 'away' for a few years, or yes, I suppose they could have been unlucky enough to lose 3 children in those days. Maz. XX

lol, sorry, shall have to oil the zimmer more often. Well, I cant find him remarrying and I have found another Louisa born in Shoreditch in 1838. So perhaps she did lose about 6 kids? How awful for them.

I have this lot living in Bethnal Green ggpx4: 1851 Census living at Bethnal Green William Wyles Head aged 49 letter sorter born Lincoln Burg le Marsh Catherine Wyles Wife aged 39 Upholsterer born Surrey, Lambeth Mary Ann Wyles dau aged 18? Upholsterer born Middlesex St George East Louisa Wyles dau aged 7 ? Scholar born Middx St George Catherine Wyles dau aged 2 Scholar born Middx St George Ok , now look at that 11 year gap between the eldest child and the next one! Then the youngest one, only 2 (in fact I think she was 4 from later census) called Catherine, like mum. Now in normal circumstances I would say to someone the dad has remarried but in the 1841 census the husband and wife are there with just the 8 year old Mary Anne but the wife is the same name, same age, same place of birth as the marriage document. Mmmm Could she have lost that many kids?

Blimey , very senior moment - forgotten to tell us the problem. She 'll no doubt be back in a moment - hark- can hear her zimmer clanking!

See below please