Hi all, It was recently suggested in the 'Epidemic' thread that the reason for having large families during the Industrial Revolution was to ensure the survival of at least some. I confess to having subscribed to that explanation myself for many years - and not just for the olden days! However, reading the bald explanation in type made me sit back and wonder. Surely parents couldn't be that determined to continue their family line, that they would just keep churning out more bairns. Obviously there are many factors involved, but it would be interesting to read some read some serious research on this matter. Must find some. Incidentally, I am the oldest of 7. My wife and I have 5 children. Our son-in-law is the oldest of 12! Not very common in our culture. There you go, another factor I hadn't even thought of - cultural pressure. I know many times we have experienced it, of course only to a small degree. >From now on, I will only think of the compulsive procreative urge as a family survival mechanism being applicable to animals ... and even there, unconsciously so. Tom

Tom Hockley wrote: > Hi all, > > It was recently suggested in the 'Epidemic' thread that the reason for > having large families during the Industrial Revolution was to ensure the > survival of at least some. I suspect that it was more a lack of effective or affordable contraception, than anything else! Of course, those of the Catholic faith are/were expected not to use such stuff. It was either abstinence or a large family (Or was it incontinence? I can never remember which) Cheers Rich -- Born in Sheffield, but currently in Nottingham UK. Family names:- ASHFORTH, CAVE, CHAMPION, HODGES, HOPE, JACKSON, NICHOLSON, SIMPSON, SLEE, TETLEY, WALKER, WESTOVER, WOOLLEN, WILLIAMS. Home Website: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.tetley/