"Don Phillipson" wrote in message
...
"GordonD" wrote in message
...
"Don Phillipson" wrote in message
...
"David Hill" wrote in message
...

A cousin of mine lost her daughter to cancer a short while ago.
She raised the following question.
A man who loses his wife is a widower, a woman who loses her husband is
a widow, a child who loses a parent is an orphan. Why is there no word
in the English language for a parent who loses a child?

Perhaps because before 1900 this was so common: most
parents lost at least one child to illness, i.e. bereavement was
normal and required no special word.

I'd also suggest that there's no easy way to tell if a family is missing
a child as there is no set number of children they should have. In the
other situations, there is: one spouse or two parents; any fewer and it's
clear something has happened, either a death or a family break-up.

Family trees of the 18th and 19th centuries seem to confirm the
normality of death before maturity. Some of my ancestors applied the
same Christian name to three successive children (because the first
two died in infancy.) The implication is that such families did not
feel they were "missing a child."


I didn't mean 'missing' in the sense of 'being aware of the absence of'. My
point was that if you observe a family unit consisting of the parents and
three children there is no way to tell if there had been a fourth child who
has died. However if the family consists of a woman and three children, then
it's immediately obvious that the father is dead (or at least absent).
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."