Linda and Shirley with family tree
Your back pages
Hit the books and click the links to explore family history with further reading.
Related programme
First, migration and stability. The popular notion that the family in the past lived out its existence in one place without geographical upheaval has been routed by the work of demographers. Michael Anderson argued that “however hard we look” the geographically stable family was “very rare” in all but a few places in Britain and that this has been the case “since medieval times”. His work on a national sample of the 1851 census illustrates that under half the population lived where they were born, two-fifths had moved before their 15th birthday, and one in six had moved before their second birthday. Furthermore, these migratory patterns were similar for both people living in rural and urban areas. While the distances migrated were relatively short, existing transport systems and poor communications meant that this was sufficient to put the migrants out of easy reach of their relatives. Anderson’s work, therefore, depicts migration as a long established population trend.
So, how is this useful to family historians? Knowing that migration was a commonplace occurrence over many hundreds of years, it is possible to compare the migration, or lack of movement, of any individual family against this general picture. Did that family move around the country? If so, how far did they go? Did they move often, or only once? Did they move with other members of their family, or alone? Is it useful to break down the information we have by sex to see if the men in our family were more likely to migrate than women, or vice versa? Beginning with data about average migration patterns enables us to consider how a particular family compares to wider historical developments.
Accompanying the myth of the geographically stable family in the past, there’s also the idea that people in the past adhered to a conservative moral code, where sex before marriage was unheard of, children were born to married couples and marriage was a long-lasting partnership. Michael Anderson calls into question all these points, noting that, based on the birth of their first child, around 60 per cent of women in the early 19th century seem to have conceived that child before marriage. He also notes the constancy of the illegitimate birth rate from the mid-Victorian period to the 1960s. Finally, he argues that pre-20th century marital break-up rates “closely paralleled” modern ones, but were caused by the death of a spouse rather than by divorce.
Demographic work on sexual behaviour and marriage is helpful to family historians because it enables them to make comparisons between what was happening in a particular family and what was typical. It also highlights the importance of being aware that earlier families and societies might have similarities to our own, even if there are different reasons for that behaviour. However, it is helpful to refine these comparisons by also considering, for example, the impact of class on such behaviour. If a particular family in the early 19th century were atypical in having the first child conceived after marriage, might this have been because of middle class concerns about ‘respectability’? There is often no easy answer to such questions but asking them helps drive historical enquiry further.
Family historians, then, have a lot to gain from historical demography. Beyond making a comparison between the average and the particular, and assessing a family’s typicality or lack of it, it is also possible to begin to explore why that family in the past behaved as it did.
For example, it was typical in 1871 to be geographically mobile. However, my research shows that my family remained in two nearby Cambridgeshire villages. They were, therefore, atypical of their time in this respect, although in other areas, such as birth rates, they conformed to the average trend. With this knowledge, I’m in a position to ask more questions about my family. Knowing they were not behaving in the way most families were, I can ask ‘why not?’ What was it about them, or their situation, that made them stay put, when many people saw advantages in moving around the country?
To answer this, I need to move back from the general historical picture provided by demography and re-focus on the particular history of my family, and also on the relevant local history. The dynamic of family history, the movement from the particular family to the general context, continues by returning to the particular family again, this time able to ask different questions and to begin to consider why they lived as they did.
So, how is this useful to family historians? Knowing that migration was a commonplace occurrence over many hundreds of years, it is possible to compare the migration, or lack of movement, of any individual family against this general picture. Did that family move around the country? If so, how far did they go? Did they move often, or only once? Did they move with other members of their family, or alone? Is it useful to break down the information we have by sex to see if the men in our family were more likely to migrate than women, or vice versa? Beginning with data about average migration patterns enables us to consider how a particular family compares to wider historical developments.
Accompanying the myth of the geographically stable family in the past, there’s also the idea that people in the past adhered to a conservative moral code, where sex before marriage was unheard of, children were born to married couples and marriage was a long-lasting partnership. Michael Anderson calls into question all these points, noting that, based on the birth of their first child, around 60 per cent of women in the early 19th century seem to have conceived that child before marriage. He also notes the constancy of the illegitimate birth rate from the mid-Victorian period to the 1960s. Finally, he argues that pre-20th century marital break-up rates “closely paralleled” modern ones, but were caused by the death of a spouse rather than by divorce.
Demographic work on sexual behaviour and marriage is helpful to family historians because it enables them to make comparisons between what was happening in a particular family and what was typical. It also highlights the importance of being aware that earlier families and societies might have similarities to our own, even if there are different reasons for that behaviour. However, it is helpful to refine these comparisons by also considering, for example, the impact of class on such behaviour. If a particular family in the early 19th century were atypical in having the first child conceived after marriage, might this have been because of middle class concerns about ‘respectability’? There is often no easy answer to such questions but asking them helps drive historical enquiry further.
Family historians, then, have a lot to gain from historical demography. Beyond making a comparison between the average and the particular, and assessing a family’s typicality or lack of it, it is also possible to begin to explore why that family in the past behaved as it did.
For example, it was typical in 1871 to be geographically mobile. However, my research shows that my family remained in two nearby Cambridgeshire villages. They were, therefore, atypical of their time in this respect, although in other areas, such as birth rates, they conformed to the average trend. With this knowledge, I’m in a position to ask more questions about my family. Knowing they were not behaving in the way most families were, I can ask ‘why not?’ What was it about them, or their situation, that made them stay put, when many people saw advantages in moving around the country?
To answer this, I need to move back from the general historical picture provided by demography and re-focus on the particular history of my family, and also on the relevant local history. The dynamic of family history, the movement from the particular family to the general context, continues by returning to the particular family again, this time able to ask different questions and to begin to consider why they lived as they did.
< previous Page 2 of 2
Bookmark with:
