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.

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, 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 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

"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)

"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."

On Oct 18, 7:35*pm, "Don Phillipson" wrote:
"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.

Especially infant deaths. That's why children born in January were not
registered until April, to make sure they made it through the winter.
Or children born during any other time of the year were not registered
for at least one month because the paper of the birth certificate was
quite expensive and parents saw no point to spend the money for only a
few months.

For this reason I suspect that most birthdays of famous people are
inaccurate. Also those of the ancestors recorded in our family trees.
According to some witnesses, one of my grandfathers was born in
"spring time" (in the northern hemisphere) but his birth certificate
indicates "Fifteen of October"

Sacha filted:

On 2012-10-19 00:33:40 +0100, "Don Phillipson" said:

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've come across that several times in my family tree. I think one poor
family had three attempts to get a child called John, before
succeeding. It seems - in these cases - either an attempt to carry on
a family name, or perhaps a tribute to the child that had died. In our
own time, a friend of mine considered calling a new son after a
cot-death baby. She didn't.

I've heard that some bereaved parents did this as a folk protection against the
Grim Reaper taking away the new child; the idea was to confuse the spirits into
thinking that they had already taken this one....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

"R H Draney" wrote

Sacha filted:

"Don Phillipson" said:

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've come across that several times in my family tree. I think one poor
family had three attempts to get a child called John, before
succeeding. It seems - in these cases - either an attempt to carry on
a family name, or perhaps a tribute to the child that had died. In our
own time, a friend of mine considered calling a new son after a
cot-death baby. She didn't.

I've heard that some bereaved parents did this as a folk protection against
the
Grim Reaper taking away the new child; the idea was to confuse the spirits
into
thinking that they had already taken this one....r


In my wife's family tree every first born male is called Joseph, it's a
tradition that all parts of the family kept to it making investigating their
Family Tree "interesting" and has actually stopped me because I can't find
out which was which of the two born in 1826 in the same area!! Certainly,
consistently, when the first Joseph died the next boy was named Joseph and
I've even found a Birth Certificate that has a separate box which states "
name changed after registration" which I had never heard of before.
--
Regards. Bob Hobden.
Posted to this Newsgroup from the W of London, UK

In uk.rec.gardening R H Draney wrote:
I've come across that several times in my family tree. I think one poor
family had three attempts to get a child called John, before
succeeding. It seems - in these cases - either an attempt to carry on
a family name, or perhaps a tribute to the child that had died. In our
own time, a friend of mine considered calling a new son after a
cot-death baby. She didn't.

I've heard that some bereaved parents did this as a folk protection against the
Grim Reaper taking away the new child; the idea was to confuse the spirits into
thinking that they had already taken this one....r

I can imagine it being rather confusing for /everyone/, unless they
dismissed any reference to the first child from any future conversation!