I am sure that's a possibility though someone with more medical knowledge than me could say how long a rhesus negative child would be likely to live, if second or third or subsequent- born. I'm also rhesus negative, so thank goodness for modern medicine... I seem also to remember reading a book which said that syphilis was also a killer of babies, with a pattern who might be conjectured... No certainties of course. Once a mother was infected, there would be a likelihood that there would be a number of children still-born because of the congenital form of the disease. and then one or two sickly children who didn't live long, and then the disease having gone to ground, so to speak, subsequent children, with luck, would be unaffected. Modern antibiotics can deal with the problem, but of course, they were unknown in earlier times. Margaret Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Kathy Wadlow via DERBYSGEN<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: 22/01/2017 18:04 To: Derbyshire genealogy<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Kathy Wadlow<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DBY] rhesus factor I find it an interesting thought too Joan, a possibility I hadn't thought of when looking at some Parish records I have showing a family having 6 children, only one of whom survived to adulthood.. The first born 1693 was the survivor, the next b. 1695 lived 11 days, next b. 1696 lived 5 yrs. next b. 1699 lived 1 yr. next b. 1701 lived 2 yrs. next b. 1703 died 10yrs. & lastly one born 1705 with no further records shown. The first born survivor married and had 4 sons, one of whom died at 1 yr. which isn't actually relevant to the theory though. I believe various infections (other than diseases) was a very common (but unknown at the time) cause but it seems unlikely that one family should be so unlucky, having coped well with their first born. So, your theory could possibly be correct - but as Nivard has pointed out we will never be able to know cause of death for certain. Future researchers are going to be so lucky with everything documented aren't they? Kathy in Kent Sent from my iPad On 22 Jan 2017, at 17:26, Joan M via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Nivard, You are totally correct in that it can't be proven and I suspect because the condition wasn't know about a death certificate wouldn't prove much unless it specified a particular event such as accident etc. I think the only indication (and then it's not certain) would be if the first child survived then the rest died, just an interesting thought as a rhesus negative person myself. Kind regards Joan -----Original Message----- From: DERBYSGEN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington via DERBYSGEN Sent: 22 January 2017 16:49 To: [email protected] Cc: Nivard Ovington Subject: Re: [DBY] rhesus factor Hi Joan Without documentary evidence, such as death certs, anything else is pure guesswork Large fire or accident, various diseases etc all can be a factor but without investigating in more detail you are not going to know for sure Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > On 22-Jan-17 4:44 PM, Joan M via DERBYSGEN wrote: > I've just found a couple 1911 censuses where there are a large number > of children born but only one or two survive. Could one reason be the > problem with the mother's blood type being rhesus negative where the > first child survives if rhesus positive but because antibodies have > then built up any subsequent rhesus positive children will have their blood cells destroyed? > Hope this makes sense!!! > > Joan ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Rhesus disease (Haemolytic Disease of the Newborn to give it's correct title) gets more severe the more children you have. So after the first child or two you would get a jaundiced child, then maybe a stillbirth and then even earlier miscarriage. Any surviving children in the middle could be Rh negative as only positive children are affected. I once read an interesting theory that Catherine of Aragon may have been Rh negative which explained why she had so many miscarriages. Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Margaret Siudek via DERBYSGEN<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: 22/01/2017 18:24 To: Derbyshire genealogy<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Margaret Siudek<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DBY] rhesus factor I am sure that's a possibility though someone with more medical knowledge than me could say how long a rhesus negative child would be likely to live, if second or third or subsequent- born. I'm also rhesus negative, so thank goodness for modern medicine... I seem also to remember reading a book which said that syphilis was also a killer of babies, with a pattern who might be conjectured... No certainties of course. Once a mother was infected, there would be a likelihood that there would be a number of children still-born because of the congenital form of the disease. and then one or two sickly children who didn't live long, and then the disease having gone to ground, so to speak, subsequent children, with luck, would be unaffected. Modern antibiotics can deal with the problem, but of course, they were unknown in earlier times. Margaret Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Kathy Wadlow via DERBYSGEN<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: 22/01/2017 18:04 To: Derbyshire genealogy<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: Kathy Wadlow<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [DBY] rhesus factor I find it an interesting thought too Joan, a possibility I hadn't thought of when looking at some Parish records I have showing a family having 6 children, only one of whom survived to adulthood.. The first born 1693 was the survivor, the next b. 1695 lived 11 days, next b. 1696 lived 5 yrs. next b. 1699 lived 1 yr. next b. 1701 lived 2 yrs. next b. 1703 died 10yrs. & lastly one born 1705 with no further records shown. The first born survivor married and had 4 sons, one of whom died at 1 yr. which isn't actually relevant to the theory though. I believe various infections (other than diseases) was a very common (but unknown at the time) cause but it seems unlikely that one family should be so unlucky, having coped well with their first born. So, your theory could possibly be correct - but as Nivard has pointed out we will never be able to know cause of death for certain. Future researchers are going to be so lucky with everything documented aren't they? Kathy in Kent Sent from my iPad On 22 Jan 2017, at 17:26, Joan M via DERBYSGEN <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Nivard, You are totally correct in that it can't be proven and I suspect because the condition wasn't know about a death certificate wouldn't prove much unless it specified a particular event such as accident etc. I think the only indication (and then it's not certain) would be if the first child survived then the rest died, just an interesting thought as a rhesus negative person myself. Kind regards Joan -----Original Message----- From: DERBYSGEN [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington via DERBYSGEN Sent: 22 January 2017 16:49 To: [email protected] Cc: Nivard Ovington Subject: Re: [DBY] rhesus factor Hi Joan Without documentary evidence, such as death certs, anything else is pure guesswork Large fire or accident, various diseases etc all can be a factor but without investigating in more detail you are not going to know for sure Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > On 22-Jan-17 4:44 PM, Joan M via DERBYSGEN wrote: > I've just found a couple 1911 censuses where there are a large number > of children born but only one or two survive. Could one reason be the > problem with the mother's blood type being rhesus negative where the > first child survives if rhesus positive but because antibodies have > then built up any subsequent rhesus positive children will have their blood cells destroyed? > Hope this makes sense!!! > > Joan ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Hi, I ran into an interesting family living next door to one of my own in North Wales. Both families were large but the neighbours lost 9 out 14 children within a year or two of birth, whereas mine were rudely healthy and all survived. The father of the other family enters the North Wales Asylum after the 1911 census and dies there in 1918. There is no suggestion of anything criminal going on and they did adopt a child too, but I did wonder if the children had died of congenital syphilis especially since the surviving children were the first (illegitimate and born two years before the marriage) and the last four. I keep dithering about getting a death certificate or two ... Once upon a time I was a clinical biochemist so odd deaths interest me. I'm also a rhesus baby - first child so no problems - but my second brother, the third child, was a sickly wee soul with a skin colour to match his ginger hair. My 6 year old mind was very surprised to find that babies came in shades of orange. Mum was warned the next child would not survive at all, so there were no more children. Natalia On 23/01/17 7:24 AM, Margaret Siudek via DERBYSGEN wrote: > I am sure that's a possibility though someone with more medical knowledge than me could say how long a rhesus negative child would be likely to live, if second or third or subsequent- born. I'm also rhesus negative, so thank goodness for modern medicine... > > I seem also to remember reading a book which said that syphilis was also a killer of babies, with a pattern who might be conjectured... No certainties of course. Once a mother was infected, there would be a likelihood that there would be a number of children still-born because of the congenital form of the disease. and then one or two sickly children who didn't live long, and then the disease having gone to ground, so to speak, subsequent children, with luck, would be unaffected. Modern antibiotics can deal with the problem, but of course, they were unknown in earlier times. > > Margaret > > Sent from my Windows Phone > ________________________________ >