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

An examination of the numbers of child deaths, within each family group of the MAYs, reveals that nearly every family lost between one and two children in fancy across the whole period of study. The percentage of infant deaths is shown below (fig,7), taken at face value, is misleading. The low percentages of the early and late generations are due to lack of information. In the early period, there is a lack of of records: many children are known only from their parents’ wills, by which time they had already outlived infancy. The last generation under study contains two families (those of James MAY (1760-1805) of Englefield and John MAY (1775-1866) of Sindlesham) with several years between births of children. Thus, there may have been miscarriages or still-births in these years which would increase the percentage.

Fig. 7. Table showing Infant Mortality in the MAY Family

The increased percentage of infant deaths in the third and fourth generations illustrates an interesting point. The figures are raised by the 40% mortality rate of the children of Charles MAY (1656-1697) of Reading and the 43% rate of the children of Charles MAY (1670-1714) of Basingstoke. Both these men lived within towns, where living conditions were generally poorer than on the country farms where the rest of the family lived. Disease was more common in town and spread quicker and more easily. Charles MAY was wealthier than his contemporaries, but this could not prevent three of his children dying of smallpox between 1708 and 1718. The fact that wealth did not necessarily help small children to survive is echoed in the countryside where mortality of MAY infants was broadly similar per family. It was the difference between town and country life which effected this most; though the situation may have improved by the early nineteenth century, when none of Charles MAY (1767-1844) of Basingstoke’s urban children died in infancy. Of course, all the MAYs under discussion were reasonably well off and, though there is no appreciable difference between the infant mortality rate of yeoman and gentry families, if some of the family had been agricultural labourers or industrial workers, the rate may have been much higher.

It is difficult to assess the attitudes of the MAY family towards children, and infant deaths in particular, as there are no existing personal records such as diaries or letters which can be examined for the period of study. There is only Mary Anne MAY (1848-1931)’s reference to her grandfather, Daniel MAY (1771-1851) being “devoted to his sons and a most kind and liberal father” (May 1916). Repetition of names of dead children among those born later may indicate some detachment from the children, but this was a common practice. In the MAY family, in the seventeenth and first quarter of the eighteenth century, every child who died young had their name reused amongst any siblings which followed. Only from about 1725 onwards do deceased children begin to keep their individuality. Though Charles MAY Junior of Basingstoke (1800-1841)’s youngest daughter became Jane after her sister Jane Simonds MAY, William MAY (1709-1777 of Bramley’s youngest son was not named after his deceased brother, Thomas, in 1752; James MAY (1728-1772) of Englefield did not name any of his children Lucy Ann after his deceased eldest daughter (1754)(1); and Thomas MAY (1737-1800) of Brimpton’s youngest daughter (b.1783) did not become ‘Jane’ after her sister who had died three years before. It is interesting that the loss of the latter two children was felt so great that memorial gravestones were erected to them, yet they were only three and two years old respectively. This also happened with John, the young son of William MAY (1729-1797) of Burghfield. Similarly, in 1714, Charles MAY (1670-1714) of Basingstoke’s three young children had been remembered on his own and another memorial plaque. Perhaps if he had lived to have further children, their names would not have been re-used. Certainly, the MAYs seem to have felt great sorrow at the loss of their children from the late eighteenth century, and probably as early as 1700.

Next