I have been doing some intensive searching of GRO Indexes for the period 1920-1940 and it has raised an issue that interests me. In the families I have been searching for, it seems that the numbers of children born has dropped markedly, to 1 or 2 children per family. A far cry from earlier generations. Of course, I know that there were larger families, but I am curious to learn whether there was a general drop in England's birthrate at that time. Maybe it's just my imagination. Have other researchers found something similar in the families they are researching? I would welcome some information. Ailsa Petrie Hamilton New Zealand -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 20/01/2006

Hi Ailsa, I hadn't noticed it until you mentioned it but, yes, the same pattern is there in my family tree. My grandparents on both sides were having their respective families during the 1920s. Each had only three children. Yet, individually three of them were from a much larger family: Fred APPLETON was one of 10 (9 surviving past infancy), Thomas EVANS was one of 12 (10 surviving infancy), Hannah Mary APPLETON (nee FAWCETT) was one of 11 (only 6 surviving infancy) whilst Evelyn EVANS (nee BOWERS) was one of 4. regards, Peter Appleton My Family Tree website: http:/www.tribalpages.com/tribes/pappleton3 -----Original Message----- From: Ailsa Petrie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 January 2006 06:26 To: [email protected] Subject: [NYorks] Family Size in England 1920-1940 I have been doing some intensive searching of GRO Indexes for the period 1920-1940 and it has raised an issue that interests me. In the families I have been searching for, it seems that the numbers of children born has dropped markedly, to 1 or 2 children per family. A far cry from earlier generations. Of course, I know that there were larger families, but I am curious to learn whether there was a general drop in England's birthrate at that time. Maybe it's just my imagination. Have other researchers found something similar in the families they are researching? I would welcome some information. Ailsa Petrie Hamilton New Zealand -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 20/01/2006 ==== ENG-NORTH-YORKS Mailing List ==== Check out other genealogy resources on the net at John Fuller's most helpful site http://www.rootsweb.com/~jfuller/gen_mail.html ============================== Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more: http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx

Hi Peter, I'm pleased that I wasn't imagining it! I have noted other patterns in my family, too, which makes an interesting social comment of the times. Does the following compare with your research, too? Before the 1891 census, farmers' daughters married farmers' sons and those sons invariably worked with their fathers, the majority living with their parents until marriage. After 1891, sons were working for others and by the 1901 census, even many daughters were working and living away from the family home. Farmers' daughters didn't marry farmers' sons, either, but men in a range of occupations, including a lot of railway employees. In my family, it began a move outwards to other areas, although most appear to have stayed within Yorkshire. The other pattern I've noted is that after 1891, a wide range of new names were used for their children, instead of those of generations passed. William, John, James & Robert etc., gave way to Norman, Kenneth, Stanley and Maurice; Hannah, Mary, Elizabeth and Jane etc., gave way to Muriel, Beatrice, Florence and Elsie. It all reflects the changes in society, doesn't it, something I find fascinating. It's a history in itself, from a different angle. Regards Ailsa Peter Appleton wrote: > Hi Ailsa, > > I hadn't noticed it until you mentioned it but, yes, the same pattern is > there in my family tree. My grandparents on both sides were having their > respective families during the 1920s. Each had only three children. Yet, > individually three of them were from a much larger family: Fred APPLETON was > one of 10 (9 surviving past infancy), Thomas EVANS was one of 12 (10 > surviving infancy), Hannah Mary APPLETON (nee FAWCETT) was one of 11 (only 6 > surviving infancy) whilst Evelyn EVANS (nee BOWERS) was one of 4. > > regards, > > Peter Appleton -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/238 - Release Date: 23/01/2006

It's called: access to forms of birth control and change in attitude of Church The Rhythm Method (with a rather high method failure rate of 10% per year) was developed in the early 20th century, as researchers discovered that a woman only ovulates once per menstrual cycle. Mass production of condoms started in the mid-19th century, shortly after the invention of the rubber vulcanization process. Until the 1930s, condoms were made from rubber; they were still quite uncomfortable and expensive (though reusable) and thus only available to a small part of the population. When latex condoms at last became available in late 1930s, it was a leap forward in effectiveness and affordability. Christianity in general has had mixed opinions towards contraception and its role in society in recent years. Prior to the 1930s, contraception was generally condemned by all the major branches of Christianity, including by major reformers like Luther and Calvin. This condemnation was relaxed by the Anglican Communion at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, and most Protestant groups followed suit over the course of the 20th century, though some individual Protestants adhere to the traditional view that contraception is wrong ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ailsa Petrie" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 12:11 PM Subject: Re: [NYorks] Family Size in England 1920-1940 > Hi Peter, > > I'm pleased that I wasn't imagining it! I have noted other patterns in my > family, too, which makes an interesting social comment of the times. Does > the following compare with your research, too? > > Before the 1891 census, farmers' daughters married farmers' sons and those > sons invariably worked with their fathers, the majority living with their > parents until marriage. After 1891, sons were working for others and by > the 1901 census, even many daughters were working and living away from the > family home. Farmers' daughters didn't marry farmers' sons, either, but > men in a range of occupations, including a lot of railway employees. In my > family, it began a move outwards to other areas, although most appear to > have stayed within Yorkshire. > > The other pattern I've noted is that after 1891, a wide range of new names > were used for their children, instead of those of generations passed. > William, John, James & Robert etc., gave way to Norman, Kenneth, Stanley > and Maurice; Hannah, Mary, Elizabeth and Jane etc., gave way to Muriel, > Beatrice, Florence and Elsie. > > It all reflects the changes in society, doesn't it, something I find > fascinating. It's a history in itself, from a different angle. > > Regards > Ailsa > > Peter Appleton wrote: >> Hi Ailsa, >> >> I hadn't noticed it until you mentioned it but, yes, the same pattern is >> there in my family tree. My grandparents on both sides were having their >> respective families during the 1920s. Each had only three children. Yet, >> individually three of them were from a much larger family: Fred APPLETON >> was >> one of 10 (9 surviving past infancy), Thomas EVANS was one of 12 (10 >> surviving infancy), Hannah Mary APPLETON (nee FAWCETT) was one of 11 >> (only 6 >> surviving infancy) whilst Evelyn EVANS (nee BOWERS) was one of 4. >> >> regards, >> >> Peter Appleton > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/238 - Release Date: > 23/01/2006 > > > ==== ENG-NORTH-YORKS Mailing List ==== > To unsubscribe from the ENG-NORTH-YORKS list, send the command > "unsubscribe" to > [email protected] (if in mail mode) or > [email protected] (if in digest mode.) > > ============================== > Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for > ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13972/rd.ashx >

Hi Ailsa, I don't see quite the same strong correlation in the marriages that you do. Possibly this is due to so many of my ancestors being "in comers" into the Cleveland Ironstone Mines area. What I tend to see are instances of geographical loyalty, for example, folks from Norfolk marrying folks from Norfolk. I also see several instances of two brothers from one family marrying two sisters from another (often living just a few doors apart on the same street - a case of boys marrying the girls next door almost quite literally!). I do agree with your comments about the choice of forenames, though. Although, once again I see another trend (but I think this might apply across the whole country): the use of maiden surnames as middle forenames in subsequent generations. The most extreme example I have of this is one Thompson Hugill APPLETON (a 1st cousin twice removed). Thompson was his grandmother's maiden name and Hugill was his great-grandmother's. This naming trend seems to die out during the early years of the last century, say, 1910-1920. regards, Peter Appleton My Family Tree website: http:/www.tribalpages.com/tribes/pappleton3 -----Original Message----- Ailsa Petrie wrote: > Hi Peter, > > I'm pleased that I wasn't imagining it! I have noted other patterns in > my family, too, which makes an interesting social comment of the times. > Does the following compare with your research, too? > > Before the 1891 census, farmers' daughters married farmers' sons and > those sons invariably worked with their fathers, the majority living > with their parents until marriage. After 1891, sons were working for > others and by the 1901 census, even many daughters were working and > living away from the family home. Farmers' daughters didn't marry > farmers' sons, either, but men in a range of occupations, including a > lot of railway employees. In my family, it began a move outwards to > other areas, although most appear to have stayed within Yorkshire. > > The other pattern I've noted is that after 1891, a wide range of new > names were used for their children, instead of those of generations > passed. William, John, James & Robert etc., gave way to Norman, Kenneth, > Stanley and Maurice; Hannah, Mary, Elizabeth and Jane etc., gave way to > Muriel, Beatrice, Florence and Elsie. > > It all reflects the changes in society, doesn't it, something I find > fascinating. It's a history in itself, from a different angle. > > Regards > Ailsa

Hi again, Peter, I guess we could go on speculating and formulating theories for ages, couldn't we? Each family group has its individual makeup. It all goes to confirm yet again, though, that life back then wasn't as static as we might like to think. The custom of including a mother's maiden name in her children's name, either a son or a daughter, is in my family, too. Even my own parents did it in 1933, when my elder brother was born. And I gave my son my maiden name, Stewart, as his main name. The more things change, the more they stay the same! My gt grandparents were married for nearly 20 years before their two sons were born. When they came to New Zealand in 1882, they were both nearly 50 and their sons 9 & 5. What made them come all that way will ever remain a mystery. In contrast, the siblings of both of them never moved more than about 10 miles from their birthplace. I have often wondered if gt grandfather was something of a black sheep, or just way more adventurous than the rest of his family. Thanks for conversing with me, Peter. I do so enjoy being able to talk with people on the other side of the world. Regards Ailsa Peter Appleton wrote: > Hi Ailsa, > > I don't see quite the same strong correlation in the marriages that you do. > Possibly this is due to so many of my ancestors being "in comers" into the > Cleveland Ironstone Mines area. What I tend to see are instances of > geographical loyalty, for example, folks from Norfolk marrying folks from > Norfolk. I also see several instances of two brothers from one family > marrying two sisters from another (often living just a few doors apart on > the same street - a case of boys marrying the girls next door almost quite > literally!). > > I do agree with your comments about the choice of forenames, though. > Although, once again I see another trend (but I think this might apply > across the whole country): the use of maiden surnames as middle forenames in > subsequent generations. The most extreme example I have of this is one > Thompson Hugill APPLETON (a 1st cousin twice removed). Thompson was his > grandmother's maiden name and Hugill was his great-grandmother's. This > naming trend seems to die out during the early years of the last century, > say, 1910-1920. > > regards, > > Peter Appleton -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.22/239 - Release Date: 24/01/2006