Genealogy Chat

I am sure we all know how bad child mortality rates were in Victorian times. But I've just read an article in Family History Monthly about poisoning, which says:

'During the mid-Victorian period, children under the age of five made up 61 percent of all homicide victims. The new death clubs and insurance societies gave parents a financial incentive to dispose of children they saw as a burden. The high death rate among children gave murdereres reason to hope that their crimes might go undetected. Most of these children were murdered by their mothers.' nell

That's why you can't take out life insurance on a child now. Seems unbelievable that someone would bump off their children for the money, poor little things.

Helen, that is fascinating! One of the couples in my tree (who had now better remain nameless! lol) had a total of 8 children. The first two died within 3 days of each other. The third one survived! The next two died in infancy. I can't find any trace other than a birth for the next one. There was then a gap of about 10 years with no other children. He got a better job and they had twins who survived. Well, when I say survived, the boy actually died at the age of 27, two years before his mother. I had actually thinking along the lines of Munchoussens (sp?) by proxy. Jeanette x

I have a book of coroner's records for Wiltshire in the 1700s. He appears to have adopted a most enlightened view towards the deaths of infants. Virtually all are described as accidental. Although the coroners appear to have taken their duties seriously, any examination of the body would have been perfunctory, right up to the Victorian period. Of one young man who had died after a boxing match, the coroner took pains to state that it was not as a result of the fight, suggesting all sorts of possible causes, including the tightness of his stock! B

I wonder if there were any 'Dr Shipmans' in the Victorian age who have never been uncovered? nell

Along similar lines, I was reading the other day (can't remember if it was in a magazine or here on a thread) about the amount of non accidental deaths which were passed off as being natural causes. Apparantly, doctors and hospitals paid good money for a 'fresh body' to perform experiments and research on! Lou

70% of children who caught an infection died. If your parents didn't bump you off, then scarlet fever would. It's a wonder anybody was left to procreate!

I was recently reading about the murder of a small child in 1898. The mother and her friend were taking the child to put him in the Clitheroe Workhouse. When they got there, the Workhouse Master told them they had to get a 'ticket' first from the Overseer of the Poor, in the District where the child had been born. They started to walk back, it was a long way and a very hot day. Coming to a stream they decided to drown him instead!!!! Each tried to blame the other, but the mother was found guilty and hanged. She didnt offer any excuses or explanations other than to say she was 'sick of him'. Marjorie

Yes but just think if all thsoe people hadn't been killed ... just how many more mis transcribed names we'd have to wade thru to find ours!!!!!!!

When I was looking for info about a murder committed by my gt gt grandmother's brother (he was insane) at Kew, I found details of a baby dragged from a canal. It was newborn and obviously unwanted, but the doctor said it had been strangled and then put in the water. So sad. nell