Genealogy Chat

I know a girl would sometimes remain to look after her parents, but I frequently find many of my ancestors - male and female - died unmarried and childless. In one family of seven, three did not marry. There's no discernable reason: they weren't disabled in any way, there doesn't appear to have been a scandel that followed them, they don't even appear to have had any sort of long-term relationship. And no, they weren't priests or nuns. I was always taught that the unmarried were a social anomaly. Am I descended (indirectly!) from oddballs or was this more usual than I expected?

I 'd like to think it was common, otherwise move over and let me join the odd balls family :-) On my mother's side 2 out of 4 of my aunts stayed single, as did 2 out of 5 greataunts, and at least one of my gt gt aunts. (Oh yes and mum's cousin didn't marry until she was in her late 60s) As far as I can tell they led perfectly happy and fulfilled lives - none of them being anything like the traditional spinster sister left on the shelf to take care of aged parents. I've found quite a lot of similar cases further back in the tree -some where the unmarried sister is running the family business, and taking in various nieces, nephews and assorted relations.

I have lots of unmarried ancestors. The main reason, for the women at least, appears to be the Boer War and WW1 - there were simply not enough men to go round. My GGM was one of six girls, only she and one sister married, the other four remained single. I remember three of them - they were lovely,sunny, jolly women, who bustled about till the end of their very long lives. All of them had been engaged to be married before WW1, all lost their fiances to the conflict. But another branch DOES puzzle me - early 1800s. Fourteen children, only two married, only one grandchild born, who died very young. The family were quite well-to-do and the unmarried ones lived on into very old age. The last remaining unmarried one, married for the first time at the age of 79 - yes, I had to check it! - a few weeks after her sister died. Must have been for company! I have noticed over the generations what is referred to as 'implection'. The family starts reasonably small, the next generation have ten kids each, they all have ten kids each and so on, for about five generations. Then the whole thing comes to a stop and they almost die out - well before contraception, too. As mine kept on marrying cousins, perhaps it was exhaustion of the gene pool! I read somewhere (maybe on here) that after six generations, only 6% of a man's descendants will bear his surname. Olde Crone

3 unmarried siblings out of 7 doesn't seem particularly odd to me. I have a set of 8 Cornish brothers and sisters, of whom only 4 married, and one of them waited until he was 69 to do it! I also have 9 Norfolk siblings, of whom 3 remained single. Perhaps the right girl/boy never came along? Maybe they were not a good 'catch' financially or socially? Perhaps they were - whisper it quietly - homosexual? nell

me too,! of 9 children, only 2 went on to have children, the rest were single as far as I know, of one of them My great Aunt, she was engaged during 2nd world war, and he died at war, but she never married and always had a photo of her beloved on the mantlepiece until she died in her 90's

I have a small scandal in mine. One of my relations (born mid 1800s) was never married, but had children. To whom? I have no idea and will probably never find out. The number having children before marriage I find quite funny. It's especially funny when I tell my mum who is quite conservative about things like that lol I don't think it was uncommon for people to remain single back then. Probably more common among the lower classes though.

Just have to join this one. On both sides of my family there have been pregnancys before marriage. My mum was very straight laced but I have found out that her grandparents married two months before her mum arrived 1902 and her mum married five months before she arrived 1924. On my dads side his grandmother had three children out of wedlock and two after. His mum was also pregnant with him before he was born. Same time scale as mums. I was brought up very strickly in the 50s.

Well, it seems that the single-30-something Bridget Jones is not quite as modern as the publicity suggests. I quite like the romance of never marrying after losing the one true love, but I'm sure in reality the romance was lost on the woman.

One of my relatives died in the 1830s, an elderly bachelor. In his will he left, besides bequests to his neices and nephews, a considerable sum to the daughters of his housekeeper. Gossip said that these women bore a strong resemblance to him. Both women were spinsters at his death. Both were married to family members within the year. I find it hard not to be cynical about all of the relationships, especially since the housekeeper married the old man's manservant while her girls were still young. Were there any love matches here, or were they all trade-offs of money and respectability?

I thought from your thread title that you meant that a lot of your ancestors were born out of wedlock, but I see that is not the case. Remember your ancestors are just your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., the rest are just relatives. It is surely impossible to have a childless ancestor!! Kate.