Re: Lifeless births


"Hugh Watkins" <hugh.watkins@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6csks3F3icq9sU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Don Moody wrote:
snip.

As a matter of family history, one of my lines is well-supplied
with maiden aunts, and they all terrify me. I suspect they were
clones because they all seemed to fit the description of Aunt Susan
as 'Half whalebone, half iron.' Tough nuts who got things done in
their own lifetime rather than waiting to have kids who could do
things. Yet, oddly, nearly all involved in some way in educating
and preparing for life the kids of others.

check your chronologies Don

The maiden aunts I was thinking of were 19th century.

because of the slaughter of wars, post 1918 and 1945 there was a
distinct shortage of eligible males

You sound like my late mother-in-law who was perpetually on about 'all
the young men were killed in the war' (WWI). But I never heard her
claim that having a child in 1927 was a virgin birth!

and around 1929 many surviving bachelors could not get enough work
to support a family

Which didn't stop kids being fathered in 1930, 31, 32, ...or the
tragic stories that resulted. In one sense the maiden aunts of that
time were the lucky ones. They didn't have bastards to nurture or dump
in orphanages and suchlike. A process for which the pieces are still
being picked up.

Don


.

Quantcast