Jill Thank you for raising this, it is something I have often thought about too. I have noticed this high infant mortality too in some families where as other families do not lose their babies [my people in Mid-Beds didn't seem to lose babies at all] but I do not think there has been a study on it. It seems to me a bit macarbre the way parents continued to name their children after earlier dead offspring but it happens a lot. Bedford was said to be one of the unhealthiest place to live in England in the late 1820s - 1830s because of cholera. And, then, there was typhoid in the 1860s. There was an article about Bedford's high moratality rate in the Local History Magazine [no 82 in Nov-Dec 2000] But I researched a family who lived in the villages east of Bedford by the river in the 18th & early 19th C and they had high infant-mortality. They were very poor and that must be, at least, a contributing factor in repeated child mortality. I don't know about twins 'though - I expect they are susceptible X 2. However, I do wonder if the River [Ouze] has anything to do with child deaths? The LOVELL family are interesting because three brothers were transported in the 1830s [and it seems that they were the 'lucky' ones!]: http://www2.tribalpages.com/tribe/browse?userid=lovellfamily&view=9&pid=13&rand=586253606 It would be good to hear what other researchers have found. We can never establish, for instance, whether there was a greater child mortality in East Beds & Huntingdonshire etc [the villages down the river from Bedford] than in Mid-Beds? I would expect, at least, that there may have been more gastric disorders and the like but as there were no death certs until 1837 there is no way of telling. cathy