MFH Home
  Family Trees
  Records
  Wills
  MIs
  Studies
  Memories  
  People
  Places
  Related Families
  Odds & Ends
  Mail David

A phenomenon which occurs within most families is illegitimacy, but there is no evidence of an unmarried MAY ever having given birth to a fatherless child. The parish registers of north-east Hampshire and mid-Berkshire are not free from illegitimate MAY baptisms, but none fit into the family tree. It seems unlikely that their would be no illegitimacy at any time throughout the family’s history. However, a family of the social standing which has been indicated for the MAYs would have had a high moral standard to keep up as an example to their employees and other villagers, and clearly this was the case. Further to this, none of the MAYs appear to have married less than nine months before the birth of their first child. In fact, the time span between marriage and birth of the first child appears to have been almost universally one year or just over, perhaps tending towards just under a year from the late eighteenth century onwards. This echoes Laslett’s conclusion that most babies were born within the first year of marriage (Laslett 1971).

The table below (fig.5) shows clearly the gap between children’s births in each generation. The most common period was two years, though the mean average shows that there was a decrease in time between births in the last quarter of the seventeenth century, which then steadily increased up to 1830. This may perhaps show an increase in wet-nursing as family fortunes increased in the early seventeenth century, since breast feeding has a contraceptive effect on the mother. as wet-nursing went out of fashion, the period between children’s births increased. Nursing one’s own child became the natural and Christian thing to do (Trumbuch 1978). This may be particularly indicated by the children of Charles MAY (1670-1714) of Basingstoke, who were mostly born a year or less apart. He was considerably wealthier than his contemporaries and could thus afford a wet-nurse for his children in the early eighteenth century. Trumbuch’s research indicates wet-nursing was declining after 1680, for the MAY family, it would seem this may have been a little later (Trumbuch 1978).

Fig.5.  Table showing Gap in Years between Children born in each Generation of the MAY family.

There seems to have been no pattern to the length of child bearing years over the generations. The average number of years between eldest and youngest child fluctuated from circa 21 years in the first generation to 12 years, 8 years, 14 years, 19 years and finally 8 years in the sixth generation. The numbers of children born to a couple certainly dropped over the generations: the average being 9.5 children in the first generation and dropping steadily through 7 and 6 in the following three generations. A rise in the fifth generation is perhaps surprising, though the fall continues with an average of 5 children per family by 1830. Stone states that larger families like those of the earlier generations were characteristic of the upper classes who wished to ensure a male heir (Stone 1977). Families on the MAY tree were only increased by multiple births in the younger secondary branch: James MAY (1700-1774) of Theale and his brother, Daniel, were twins; so were James’ own sons, James (1728-1772) and Thomas (1728-1728), and great great grandaughters, Amelia Rhoda (1836-1893) and Mary Mitford (1836-1904).

The high fertility of MAYs and their wives has already been indicated by the long spans of child bearing years: Ann Lucy (PRINCE) MAY bore children to her husband, James (1728-1772) of Englefield, over a period of twenty-five years! The highest number of children, twelve, were born to Thomas MAY (d.1718) of Nately Scures (1) and Elizabeth (CLAPSHOE)! Elizabeth was the oldest female in the family to produce a child, at forty-five. Her husband was one of the three joint oldest males, at (approximately) forty-seven. Both were of the second generation when MAY wives were still having children into their late 30s (see fig.6), not surprisingly as bigger families were then the norm. Average age of mothers when the last child was born dropped from thirty-eight years in the third generation (and possibly higher before this) to thirty-three years in the sixth generation. The fathers’ ages stayed around the forty mark throughout the period. There was no difference across the social scale.  

Fig.6. Age of Parents at the time of their last child’s birth, for each generation of the MAY family.

Next