dee_burris: (Default)
[personal profile] dee_burris
I love talking to other genealogists. I prefer amateurs like myself.

But I always get irritated when the discussion takes a turn I simply cannot understand. I'm talking about a fairly widely held belief that when our ancestors' children died, they did not feel their grief as deeply as do parents today who lose a child.

I'm calling bullshit on that one.

Yes, I realize that generally speaking, our ancestors had many more children than we do these days, particularly before latex condoms became widely available in the 1920s in the United States. I am also aware that rural farming communities required child labor that is illegal today.

But I do not believe that our ancestors loved their children less, or differently, than we do. Losing a child was no less tragic for them - one child could not "replace" another.

Photobucket
Katharine Leah Williams, 18 Jul 1899 - 8 Dec 1904


Katharine was the fourth child of my great-grandparents, Jo Desha and Maxie Leah (Meek) Williams. I don't know the exact cause of her death, but I know it was illness rather than an accident.

And it hit her parents hard - very hard. The monument erected to her memory provides a glimpse of their grief.

Photobucket


The Williams family plot in Oakland Cemetery at Russellville was a living memorial to her - a rose garden where her parents could go and sit quietly to grieve.

Photobucket
Oakland Cemetery, circa 1910

By 1920, my great-grandfather's grocery business had gone belly-up, and the family moved to Little Rock. Their hearts must have broken all over again when they had to sell that family plot at Oakland, and leave their Katharine behind.

Profile

dee_burris: (Default)
Dee Burris Blakley

June 2015

S M T W T F S
 12 3456
78 910 111213
1415161718 1920
21222324252627
28 2930    

Shakin' the Family Tree on Facebook

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 31st, 2015 02:35 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios