poor people have more children, on average. How long has this been true?

396 views

Did medieval peasants have more children on average than royalty? Or is this a modern phenomenon?

In: 71

62 Answers

1 2 3 6 7
Anonymous 0 Comments

That depended on a great many things like where they lived and what the families did.

In cases like farming, you often need a lot of workers to manage the farm, and the chance of dying as a child was high so people had a lot of kids.

But people living in towns and cities needed fewer kids, so had fewer

Anonymous 0 Comments

That depended on a great many things like where they lived and what the families did.

In cases like farming, you often need a lot of workers to manage the farm, and the chance of dying as a child was high so people had a lot of kids.

But people living in towns and cities needed fewer kids, so had fewer

Anonymous 0 Comments

It’s been a thing for as long as human civilization has been around.

The bulk of it has to do with child death rates, the more kids one has, the more likely at least some of them will survive until adulthood.

It also has to do with needing help with farming, hunting, and just plain survival.

It’s also one of the oddest quirks of humanity I think. When times are bad, when poverty is unbearable, and survivability is in question…. What do humans do, have more kids……

You still see that occurring in lesser developed countries today.

Anonymous 0 Comments

It’s been a thing for as long as human civilization has been around.

The bulk of it has to do with child death rates, the more kids one has, the more likely at least some of them will survive until adulthood.

It also has to do with needing help with farming, hunting, and just plain survival.

It’s also one of the oddest quirks of humanity I think. When times are bad, when poverty is unbearable, and survivability is in question…. What do humans do, have more kids……

You still see that occurring in lesser developed countries today.

Anonymous 0 Comments

That depended on a great many things like where they lived and what the families did.

In cases like farming, you often need a lot of workers to manage the farm, and the chance of dying as a child was high so people had a lot of kids.

But people living in towns and cities needed fewer kids, so had fewer

Anonymous 0 Comments

It’s been a thing for as long as human civilization has been around.

The bulk of it has to do with child death rates, the more kids one has, the more likely at least some of them will survive until adulthood.

It also has to do with needing help with farming, hunting, and just plain survival.

It’s also one of the oddest quirks of humanity I think. When times are bad, when poverty is unbearable, and survivability is in question…. What do humans do, have more kids……

You still see that occurring in lesser developed countries today.

Anonymous 0 Comments

It really all depends on where, and for how long. You needed children both to love and to help. You needed to be able to hire them out. You needed them to live to take care of you in your old age because you didn’t have money to hire other people to do it. The more children you had, the greater the chance of there being some who live long enough and are willing to care for you.

Like the example of the average lifespan. From the 1500s to about 1800, in Europe, it hovered between 30 and 40. This was because, from checking out skeletons, a lot of people died very, very young. Infant mortality had a huge impact. And, of course, this was around the time of the Black Plague. In the mid-1800s, doctors began regularly washing their hands before surgery. The average lifespan shot up.

Take the Schuylers, whose daughter Eliza married Alexander Hamilton. They kept giving the sons the same name until one made it.

1. Angelica 1756 – 1814
2. Elizabeth 1757 – 1854
3. Margarita (Peggy)
4. ~~Cornelia the first John’s twin~~
5. ~~John Bradstreet the first Cornelia’s twin~~
6. ~~John Bradstreet~~
7. John Bradstreet
8. Philip
9. ~~triplets~~
10. Twelve, really. Sort of. Rensselaer
11. Cornelia (Second time’s the charm)
12. Cortlandt
13. Catherine

This was a wealthy family, they had fifteen children. At least more than half survived!

Anonymous 0 Comments

In UK they get paid to have kids in the past or even now maybe, like get given a council house, more babies more money

Anonymous 0 Comments

It really all depends on where, and for how long. You needed children both to love and to help. You needed to be able to hire them out. You needed them to live to take care of you in your old age because you didn’t have money to hire other people to do it. The more children you had, the greater the chance of there being some who live long enough and are willing to care for you.

Like the example of the average lifespan. From the 1500s to about 1800, in Europe, it hovered between 30 and 40. This was because, from checking out skeletons, a lot of people died very, very young. Infant mortality had a huge impact. And, of course, this was around the time of the Black Plague. In the mid-1800s, doctors began regularly washing their hands before surgery. The average lifespan shot up.

Take the Schuylers, whose daughter Eliza married Alexander Hamilton. They kept giving the sons the same name until one made it.

1. Angelica 1756 – 1814
2. Elizabeth 1757 – 1854
3. Margarita (Peggy)
4. ~~Cornelia the first John’s twin~~
5. ~~John Bradstreet the first Cornelia’s twin~~
6. ~~John Bradstreet~~
7. John Bradstreet
8. Philip
9. ~~triplets~~
10. Twelve, really. Sort of. Rensselaer
11. Cornelia (Second time’s the charm)
12. Cortlandt
13. Catherine

This was a wealthy family, they had fifteen children. At least more than half survived!

Anonymous 0 Comments

In UK they get paid to have kids in the past or even now maybe, like get given a council house, more babies more money

1 2 3 6 7