Topics

thoughts - opinions

Trudy Barch
 

While researching, I am finding babies that died at birth.  Some of the mothers, I never met or communicated with.   Some I met either in person or via correspondence. 

In particular I met one lady that told me her children’s name, etc. but NOT about the one that died at birth.  She is deceased now.  And I am finding others also.

Do I include those babies in my database as family members?     What do you do?

 

Thank you,   Trudy Barch

sharon yampell
 

I include all children born  on my tree…if I don’t know their name, I put Baby and the last name and I include all dates if available…

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Trudy Barch
Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 9:38 PM
To: Jewishgen Digest Q & A
Subject: [JewishGen.org] thoughts - opinions

 

While researching, I am finding babies that died at birth.  Some of the mothers, I never met or communicated with.   Some I met either in person or via correspondence. 

In particular I met one lady that told me her children’s name, etc. but NOT about the one that died at birth.  She is deceased now.  And I am finding others also.

Do I include those babies in my database as family members?     What do you do?

 

Thank you,   Trudy Barch

 

Barbara Mannlein
 

Yes, they are family.  Even though they died at birth they are still relatives.

Barbara Mannlein
Tucson, AZ

On Jan 12, 2020, at 6:52 PM, Trudy Barch <cousintrudy@...> wrote:

While researching, I am finding babies that died at birth.  Some of the mothers, I never met or communicated with.   Some I met either in person or via correspondence.  
In particular I met one lady that told me her children’s name, etc. but NOT about the one that died at birth.  She is deceased now.  And I am finding others also.
Do I include those babies in my database as family members?     What do you do?
 
Thank you,   Trudy Barch

David Lewin
 

The simple answer is a resounding YES

Genealogy must be a factual record. not a beautified one.  Sadly, some children die,   some even at birth.

David Lewin
London


At 01:52 13/01/2020, Trudy Barch wrote:
While researching, I am finding babies that died at birth.  Some of the mothers, I never met or communicated with.   Some I met either in person or via correspondence. 
In particular I met one lady that told me her childrens name, etc. but NOT about the one that died at birth.  She is deceased now.  And I am finding others also.
Do I include those babies in my database as family members?     What do you do?
 
Thank you,   Trudy Barch

sylvia vanderhoeft
 

Hi Trudy,

I always include babies who died at birth in my family tree, even if they were unnamed, it has amazed the family because they didn’t know about them.

Regards,

Sylvia

 

Verzonden vanuit Mail voor Windows 10

 

Barbara Ellman
 

Trudy asked about including babies who died at birth in the family database.  I do include these infants in my family research.  It says a lot about life and lose.  When I look at a family group and see that the mother had 10 children born and only 3 survived to adulthood, it tells me much about the family and what they went through

--
Barbara Ellman
Secaucus NJ

--
Barbara Ellman
Secaucus NJ USA
HASSMAN, SONENTHAL, DAUERMAN, LUCHS - Drohobycz, Ukraine
HIRSCHHORN, GOLDSTEIN, BUCHWALD - Dolyna, Ukraine
ELLMAN, COIRA, MAIDMAN - Minkovtsy, Ukraine
KAGLE, FASS - Ulanow, Poland

boris
 

Excellent point!

Boris Feldblyum
boris@...

Jeff Marx
 

There are a number of practical reasons why still-births should be recorded on your family tree.  First, the 1910 U.S. census asked families to indicate how many children the mother had birthed and how many were still living.  If you only knew of two children but the census indicated that there had been another child, no longer living, the fact that you’ve noted the still-born child saves you and future researchers wasted time in hunting down this third, potential relative. Second, still-births can help explain a large gap in birth years between siblings, again saving wasted time in hunting for hypothetical sibling(s) who may not have been recorded.  Third, a still-birth or consecutive still-births may provide a possible answer to the question of why a given couple “didn’t have children.”  Finally, understanding the heartbreak of a still-born birth, even during times when infant mortality was high and “normal,” gives us (just like the sudden death of a husband or wife in a household of young children) a small glimpse into the mostly-hidden personal lives of those who lived long ago.

--
Jeff Marx
Researching ANSPACHER, AUGAPHEL, AUGENBLICK, BREAKSTONE, BREGSTEIN, CARLEBACH, HIEGENLICH, KUBELSKY, MARX

Eva Lawrence
 

Stillborn children impact on the family. They fill gaps where people
might still be searching for a lost cousin, they tell us about the
life of the of the family and about the mother's health. So I always
keep a record of them. That said, it's not always necessary to include
them in every tree, I even sometimes omit unmarried family members. It
all depends on the context in which you are working..

Eva Lawrence
St Albans, UK
--
Eva Lawrence
St Albans, UK.

btkerman@...
 

I will give a couple reasons to include babies who died at birth.
I recently corresponded with someone who did extensive research to determine a genetic disorder in his family. Part of this involved looking for children who died young in the family tree. However, the vast majority of the deaths in childhood that were so much more common in the past were probably just from the lacking medicine and sanitation and don't indicate anything hereditary.
In my family tree discovering multiple infant deaths has helped determine the birth order and approximate years of the surviving siblings by considering the pregnancy time for the deceased infant.
Finally, they are part of the family and the family story. Since they often were not discussed this is really the last chance to give them recognition.
All the best,
Binyamin Kerman
Baltimore MD

eagle0017@...
 

I had an aunt who fell down a short flight of stairs during the 8 + month.  They rushed her to the hospital for a c section.  The baby was dead and my aunt was injured. She couldn't  have any children after that.  Needless to say she was sad the rest of her of her life at the lost of the child.  I would never mention the infant on my tree and it upsets me when a family member has it on their tree as a stillborn.  To me it was a tragedy.
Marge Hurl

NISICHES,  ADLER, CZITRONE,  KLEIN

Dahn Cukier
 

There are good reasons on both sides. If the listing
is difficult, do not list on trees.

I have a husband/father who divorced and the former wife (my relative) and
children do have contact with the father. The mother remarried and
the children were adopted by the husband.

I was showing the biological family, but since I found out how
difficult it was to this branch, I made the father "unlinked" and put a
complete explanation in his notes, but no connection to the family.
In this way he never shows up in anything published.

The reason to keep him, is that - he is the biological father and
if there is ever a reason to find their ancestors, the information
and even copies of documents are in my records.

Dani


When you start to read readin,
how do you know the fellow that
wrote the readin,
wrote the readin right?

Festus Hagen
Long Branch Saloon
Dodge City, Kansas


On Tuesday, January 14, 2020, 5:03:23 AM GMT+2, <eagle0017@...> wrote:


I had an aunt who fell down a short flight of stairs during the 8 + month.  They rushed her to the hospital for a c section.  The baby was dead and my aunt was injured. She couldn't  have any children after that.  Needless to say she was sad the rest of her of her life at the lost of the child.  I would never mention the infant on my tree and it upsets me when a family member has it on their tree as a stillborn.  To me it was a tragedy.
Marge Hurl

NISICHES,  ADLER, CZITRONE,  KLEIN

jbonline1111@...
 

My maternal grandmother's first child was stillborn.  I list that baby on our tree because it explains some things about the family and also because knowing she was stillborn can help to dispel a family myth that she "froze to death" while my grandmother was being tended to.  I would not list a miscarriage for someone who is still living, but I might for someone who is deceased if I knew for sure that would not cause pain to anyone.  I have not done it, but the idea of unlinking a relative also has merit. 

Sarah L Meyer
 

I include all those born alive, even if they only lived a few hours.  I do not include stillborns.  I may make a note on the mother's record that she had a stillborn child, but especially without names, I do not create a record for that child.

EdrieAnne Broughton
 

If the mother is still living, I ask her.  Sometimes it's nice to know that someone cares about the stubbed off branches.  Some have hardly been able to talk about that empty crib.

Beth Long
 

I find trying to keep track of women's miscarriages intrusive. There would be no record of a miscarriage, other than a medical one, which is private. Or did you mean to say stillbirth (which is a different thing and does have a record).

Esther
 

I feel it important to list (perhaps in parenthesis) stillborns and even miscarriages.

This information can be very helpful for a person's medical history.

ESTHER (Herschman)  Rechtschafner

Kibbutz Ein-Zurim,

Israel

 

ESTHER

 

Trudy Barch
 

miscarriage is different than a stillborn or still birth, if you prefer that word.