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?
David @ the wet and windy end of Swansea Bay

"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.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

"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.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

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

On Oct 18, 3:30*pm, "GordonD" wrote:
"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.

And also because being orphaned as a child and being widowed (in the
old days) made drastic changes in one's social, economic, and legal
position, requiring the help that's mentioned so often in the Bible.
(I don't think it mentions taking care of widowers.)

--
Jerry Friedman

On 10/18/2012 7:12 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:

And also because being orphaned as a child and being widowed (in the
old days) made drastic changes in one's social, economic, and legal
position, requiring the help that's mentioned so often in the Bible.
(I don't think it mentions taking care of widowers.)

Widowers often found a new, young wife. Widows often didn't find a new
husband.

"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."

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:20:13 -0400, S Viemeister
wrote:

On 10/18/2012 7:12 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:

And also because being orphaned as a child and being widowed (in the
old days) made drastic changes in one's social, economic, and legal
position, requiring the help that's mentioned so often in the Bible.
(I don't think it mentions taking care of widowers.)

Widowers often found a new, young wife. Widows often didn't find a new
husband.

Unless they had become wealthy on the death of their husband (or in
their own right).
Penniless male members of the aristocracy have always looked for rich
women to marry, widows being no exception to someone past his
oats-sowing days.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

On Oct 18, 2:50*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:
"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.

You can make the same argument about parents or spouses before 1900.
Mortality was quite common, people hardly made it to thetr 70s.

I agree with Mr. Friedman: a change in status required a special word.

Until what age can someone claim the orphan status? I never considered
my grandparents as orphans although all their parents died before I
was born.

On Oct 18, 7:12*pm, Jerry Friedman wrote:
On Oct 18, 3:30*pm, "GordonD" wrote:





"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.

And also because being orphaned as a child and being widowed (in the
old days) made drastic changes in one's social, economic, and legal
position, requiring the help that's mentioned so often in the Bible.
(I don't think it mentions taking care of widowers.)


Wasn't a brother supposed to take care, even marry, the widow of his
deceased brother?

On 10/18/2012 8:56 PM, Arcadian Rises wrote:

Wasn't a brother supposed to take care, even marry, the widow of his
deceased brother?

In the Old Testament, yes. Not all that long ago in the UK, it was
against the law to marry your deceased spouse's sibling.

On Oct 18, 6:12*pm, S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/18/2012 8:56 PM, Arcadian Rises wrote:

Wasn't a brother supposed to take care, even marry, the widow of his
deceased brother?

In the Old Testament, yes. Not all that long ago in the UK, it was
against the law to marry your deceased spouse's sibling.

But it WAS the Old Testament, specifically Leviticus Chapter 20, Verse
16, which stated: “If a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an
impurity; he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be
childless” that Henry VIII claimed as the reason for his divorce from
Catherine of Aragon. Despite the birth and good health of their
daughter Mary, Henry was convinced that a woman could not rule England
and that God had denied him his desired male heir as a fulfillment of
the Biblical sanction against his marriage to his brother Arthur's
widow (even though there were many who testified that marriage had
never been consummated AND the fact that the Pope had authorized the
subsequent wedding, setting aside the stricture and removing any bar
to their union.)

On 18/10/2012 2:47 PM, Don Phillipson wrote:
"David Hill" wrote:

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?

Your cousin is a bereaved mother.

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.

Hitching for the usual reason; sorry.

On 19/10/12 8:56 AM, Arcadian Rises wrote:


Wasn't a brother supposed to take care, even marry, the widow of his
deceased brother?


Poor old Onan wasn't too happy about that.
--
Robert Bannister

On 19/10/12 9:28 AM, Nasti J wrote:
On Oct 18, 6:12 pm, S Viemeister wrote:
On 10/18/2012 8:56 PM, Arcadian Rises wrote:

Wasn't a brother supposed to take care, even marry, the widow of his
deceased brother?

In the Old Testament, yes. Not all that long ago in the UK, it was
against the law to marry your deceased spouse's sibling.

But it WAS the Old Testament, specifically Leviticus Chapter 20, Verse
16, which stated: “If a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an
impurity; he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be
childless” that Henry VIII claimed as the reason for his divorce from
Catherine of Aragon. Despite the birth and good health of their
daughter Mary, Henry was convinced that a woman could not rule England
and that God had denied him his desired male heir as a fulfillment of
the Biblical sanction against his marriage to his brother Arthur's
widow (even though there were many who testified that marriage had
never been consummated AND the fact that the Pope had authorized the
subsequent wedding, setting aside the stricture and removing any bar
to their union.)


I don't think he was convinced of that at all. He just knew he needed a
male heir, and when the only one he could get was sickly, in the long
run we ended up with a line of disastrous Scots, followed by Dutch
couple, followed by Germans. He had, of course, foreseen all this and
was desperate.

--
Robert Bannister

Don Phillipson wrote:

"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.
Back in the days of my youth, I took part in a Historical Survey of a
mining area in Cornwall, and one of the things we did was to survey the
local graveyards for the years 1720 -1890.. We were all struck by the
number of gravestones listing the names of children who had died in
infancy and we buried in the family plot. In one case, 13 children 11 of
whom died in infancy.
One grave, which I shall never forget in St Cleer graveyar near to
Liskeard, was dedicated to the memory of a girl who died aged 16 years
of age. It bore the following epitaph.

"Pray spare a thought as you pass by,
As you are now so once was I.
As I am now, so will you be,
So be prepared to follow me"

All food for thought. It was a very harrowing experience.

Peter

--
It is necessary for the good man to do nothing for evil to triumph.

Attributed to Edmund Burke 1729 - 1797