On 31/07/2013 12:23, Chris Dickinson wrote: > The discussion about generations reminds me of a family, Mirehouse of Miresyke in Loweswater in Cumberland, who had a cluster of long living males. > > > John Mirehouse of Miresyke, senior, was buried in 1771 at the age of 92 (according to the parish register) > His eldest son, John, was buried in 1807, aged 101 (ditto - consistent with the parish register baptism) > His eldest son, John, was buried in 1818, aged 76 (tombstone - consistent with the parish register baptism); and second son Joseph was buried in 1828, aged 88 (ditto) > > > Furthermore, the first John's brother-in-law died in 1780, aged 99, and supposedly had a daughter from a third wife in 1765 [she remained a spinster, so I imagine the community thought her fathered by someone else] > > Anyone else with a family like this? I have a few like this in a family of brewers - who perhaps lived longer because they *didn't* drink the water! It has to be partly genetic since it seems to be that extreme longevity runs in families. They are fantastic markers when you are starting out since you find great granny 90+ living with a daughter in 1900 and then in earlier censuses looking after grandkids etc. She was already married with kids in the first 1840 census - not all of her children survived for so long. My glassmakers branches tend to have a serious mortality around aged 40 from industrial accidents or consumption, but a few retired as publicans serving the glassworks after they no longer had the lungs for blowing glass. ISTR they had a daily beer allowance of 12 pints for hot working at the furnace hearth (OK it was watery beer). Basically if you survive childhood diseases and don't get TB then apart from industrial accidents or mining disasters you are OK for a while. It is the high rate of infant mortality and TB killing young adults that accounts for the poor historic life expectancy (and also WWI). -- Regards, Martin Brown