Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:23:02.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“'Tis a Misfortune to Be a Great Ladie”: Maternal Mortality in the British Aristocracy, 1558–1959

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

Judith Lewis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As long ago as 1981, the distinguished demographers E. A. Wrigley and R. S. Schofield threw out a challenge to historians. “A fully satisfactory interpretation of population history,” they offered, “must embrace a wide spectrum of related topics and techniques.” Such a history would “require an alertness for opportunities to quantify historical evidence and to make effective use of statistical techniques,” they continued, but it would be “equally alive to the importance of studying the attitudes of individuals and groups wherever possible. The family,” they concluded, “is the prime institutional form in population history, and the births, marriages and deaths of its members were affected by their behavioral conventions and beliefs as well as by their social and economic circumstances.” The British aristocracy is an ideal subject for such a multifaceted, family-oriented view of population history. Thanks to T. H. Hollingsworth and other demographers, the statistical record of their population history is probably better established than that of any other social group, while thanks to their own historical importance and privileged status, their domestic experiences are richly documented. Consequently, their social mores and personal attitudes can be identified along with their demographics.

While we normally assume that privileged social groups are healthier and generally live longer than those more humble in station, commonplace expectations have for centuries been reversed when it comes to one component of population history—maternal mortality. Popular culture has insisted, at least since the time of Rousseau, that ladies of fashion paid for their pleasures by being feeble and overly delicate, too weak to withstand the rigors of childbirth.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 1998 , pp. 26 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wrigley, E. A. and Schofield, R. S., The Population History of England, 1541–1871: A Reconstruction (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), p. 484Google Scholar.

2 Elizabeth, Lady Yarmouth, to the Hon. Lady North, 8 November 1699, ref. no. HA 49/B4(H)/1 (to be superseded when a final catalog of the North family archives is completed), Suffolk Record Office, Ipswich. Thanks to David R. Jones, branch archivist, for forwarding a photocopy of the letter to me.

3 Quoted by Jalland, Patricia in Women, Marriage and Politics, 1860–1914 (Oxford, 1986), p. 171Google Scholar.

4 Dr.Denman, Thomas, Introduction to the Practice of Midwifery, from the last London edition, with notes and emendations by John Francis, M.D. (New York, 1821), p. 466Google Scholar.

5 Stone, Lawrence, The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500–1800 (New York, 1977), p. 79Google Scholar.

6 Warner, Marina, Queen Victoria's Sketchbook (New York, 1979), p. 103Google Scholar.

7 Peller, Sigismund, “Births and Deaths among Europe's Ruling Families since 1500,” in Population in History, ed. Glass, D. V. and Eversley, D. E. C. (Chicago, 1961), pp. 438, 443, and 446Google Scholar.

8 Kerr, J. M. Munro, Johnstone, R. W., and Phillips, M. H., eds., Historical Review of British Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1800–1950 (London, 1954)Google Scholar, chap. 29, table 9.

9 Hollingsworth, T. H., “The Demography of the British Peerage,” Population Studies 18, no. 2, suppl. (1964): 53Google Scholar.

10 Thompson, F. M. L., English Landed Society in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1963), p. 27Google Scholar.

11 Although others have argued differently, I have asserted elsewhere that the so-called rise of the romantic marriage had less effect on women than on men—that is, young women experienced less autonomy in choosing their fiancés than did young men. See Lewis, Judith, In the Family Way: Childbearing in the British Aristocracy, 1760–1860 (New Brunswick, N.J., 1986), esp. pp. 17–31Google Scholar. Historians have confused two separate issues over the years: who is responsible for an engagement and what the motivations behind the engagement are. It should also be clear from the present discussion that one of the reasons parents exercised more control over daughters' marriages than over those of sons was that husbands had more power than wives. Consequently, the character of a potential husband was of greater moment, than that of a potential wife. (Mot that a woman could not make her husband miserable—of course she could—but she did not have the power to leave him destitute, or to divorce him, or to instigate physical chastisement.)

12 Hollingsworth, , “Demography of Peerage,” p. 111Google Scholar.

13 Ibid., p. 46. Of the 26,000 individuals in Hollingsworth's original study, there were 7,899 females who married, of whom only 5,339 were known to have had children.

14 I in fact originally found fifty-seven women who had died within the normative six weeks. Preliminary research, however, revealed that one of these had died of food poisoning within a few hours of her husband's death from the same cause. She was therefore eliminated immediately from the group of those who died of puerperal causes.

15 Leigh, Ione, Castlereagh (London, 1951), p. 15Google Scholar.

16 Hollingsworth, , “Demography of Peerage,” p. 23Google Scholar.

17 See Oakley, Anne, The Captured Womb (Oxford, 1984), p. 32Google Scholar. For additional analyses of Farr's figures, see McKeown, Thomas, The Modern Rise of Population (London, 1976), p. 105Google Scholar; Jalland, , Women, Marriage, and Politics, pp. 170–71Google Scholar; Branca, Patricia, Silent Sisterhood: Middle-Class Women in the Victorian Home (London, 1975), p. 81Google Scholar; Willmott-Dobbie, B. M., “An Attempt to Estimate the True Rate of Maternal Mortality, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries,” Medical History 26 (1982): 80Google Scholar; Huff, Cynthia, “Chronicles of Confinement: Reactions to Childbirth in British Women's Diaries,” Women's Studies International Forum, 10, no. 1 (1987): 66CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. See also Loudon, Irvine, “Deaths in Childbed from the Eighteenth Century to 1935,” Medical History 30 (1986): 1–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed, which provides the most comprehensive survey of the subject.

18 Schofield, Roger, “Did the Mothers Really Die? Three Centuries of Maternal Mortality,” in The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure, ed. Bonfleld, L., Smith, R. M., and Wrightson, K. (Oxford, 1986), pp. 244, 235Google Scholar.

19 Oakley, , The Captured Womb, p. 297Google Scholar.

20 Wilmott-Dobbie, , “True Rate of Maternal Mortality,” p. 80Google Scholar; Forbes, Thomas, “By What Disease or Casualty: The Changing Face of Death in London,” in Health, Medicine and Mortality in the 16th Century, ed. Webster, Charles (London, 1979), pp. 127–28Google Scholar.

21 Wilmott-Dobbie, , “True Rate of Maternal Mortality,” p. 90Google Scholar. Eccles, Audrey, “Obstetrics in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries and Its Implications for Maternal and Infant Mortality,” Bulletin of the Society for the Social History of Medicine 20 (1977): 8–11Google Scholar.

22 Schofield, , “Did the Mothers Really Die?” p. 259Google Scholar.

23 Loudon, , “Deaths in Childbed,” pp. 34–35Google Scholar.

24 Elizabeth, Lady Yarmouth, to Lady North, North MSS HA 49/B4(H)/1, Suffolk Record Office.

25 John Greene Crosse, “Obstetrical Case Books” for the years 1819 and 1825, Wellcome Institute Library for the History of Medicine, London, MSS 1916, 1:2; Loudon, , “Deaths in Childbed,” pp. 34–35Google Scholar.

26 Lewis, , Family Way, pp. 178–79Google Scholar; Loudon, , “Deaths in Childbed,” pp. 18–19, 36Google Scholar.

27 Schofield, , “Did the Mothers Really Die?” pp. 21–22Google Scholar.

28 Lewis, , Family Way, pp. 94–95Google Scholar.

29 Gupta, M. Das, “Selective Discrimination against Female Children in the Punjab,” Population and Development Review 13 (1987): 77–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quoted by Potter, Joseph E. and Volpp, Letitia in “Sex Differentials in Adult Mortality in Less Developed Countries: The Evidence and Explanation,” in Women's Position and Demographic Change, ed. Federici, Nora, Mason, Karen Oppenheim, and Sognor, Solvi (Oxford, 1993), p. 147Google Scholar.

30 Ross, Ellen, Love and Toil: Motherhood in Outcast London, 1870–1918 (New York and Oxford, 1993), pp. 31–36Google Scholar; Potter, and Volpp, , “Sex Differentials in Adult Mortality,” p. 153Google Scholar.

31 Appleby, Andrew B., “Diet: Sources: Problems, Possibilities,” in Health, Medicine, and Mortality in the Sixteenth Century, ed. Webster, Charles (Cambridge, 1979), pp. 98–102Google Scholar.

32 Pollock, Linda, “Embarking on a Rough Passage: The Experience of Pregnancy in Early Modern Society,” in Women as Mothers in Pre-Industrial England, ed. Fildes, Valerie (London, 1990), p. 53Google Scholar.

33 The Diary of John Evelyn, ed. deBeer, E. S. (London, 1959), p. 1045Google Scholar.

34 Bell, Rudolf M., Holy Anorexia (Chicago, 1987)Google Scholar.

35 Quoted by Cokayne, George Edward, The Complete Peerages of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom, ed. Hon. Gibbs, Vicary, Doubleday, H. , LorddeWalden, Howard, and White, Geoffrey, 2d ed., 13 vols. (London, 1910–1959), 10:480nGoogle Scholar.

36 Joly, A., Un converti de Bossuet: James Drummond, duc de Perth, 1648–1716 (Lille, 1933), p. 13Google Scholar.

37 Lewis, , Family Way, pp. 131–32Google Scholar.

38 Smith, F. B., The Retreat of Tuberculosis (London, 1988), p. 19Google Scholar.

39 Burnet, Bishop Gilbert, History of His Own Time (London, 1857), p. 425Google Scholar.

40 “North, Francis, First Baron Guilford (1637–1685),” Dictionary of National Biography: From the Earliest Times to 1900, ed. SirStephen, Leslie and SirLee, Sidney, 21 vols. (Oxford, 1921–1922), 14:601Google Scholar.

41 Hon.North, Roger, The Lives of the Norths: Francis North, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, the Hon. Sir Dudley North, and the Hon. Rev. Dr. John North (London, 1826), p. 167Google Scholar.

42 Ibid.

43 Charles Bertie to John Pridgeon, 1698, 10 Anc./Lot 357/18 Ancaster MSS Lincolnshire Archives Office, Lincoln. Thanks to Dr. G. A. Knight, principal archivist, for the reference.

44 Schofield, , “Did the Mothers Really Die?” p. 255Google Scholar.

45 Lewis, , Family Way, pp. 157–60Google Scholar.

46 Hollingsworth, , “Demography of the Peerage,” p. 61Google Scholar.

47 Vallin, Jacques, “Social Change and Mortality Decline: Women's Advantage Achieved or Regained?” in Federici, , Mason, , and Sognor, , eds., Women's Position and Demographic Change, p. 194Google Scholar.

48 Potter, and Volpp, , “Sex Differentials in Adult Mortality,” pp. 152, 159Google Scholar.

49 Information on Elizabeth, Lady Livingston, comes from Cokayne, , Complete Peerage, 8:28, 28n.Google Scholar; and Livingston, Edward Brockholst, The Livingstons of Callendar and Their Principal Cadets: The History of an Old Stirlingshire Family (Edinburgh, 1920), pp. 113–14Google Scholar. Elizabeth's husband did not become second earl of Linlithgow until after her death. Her father was the first marquess of Huntley, while her mother, Lady Henrietta Stewart, was a member of the royal house of Scotland.

50 Joly, , Un converti de Bossuet, pp. 13–14Google Scholar. Additional information on the Drummonds came from Cokayne's, Complete Peerage, 10:479Google Scholar. In 1661 the Restoration Parliament estimated the losses of the Drummond family in defense of the king at £154,979 6s. 8d. Reparation was recommended but never made. Too late at any event for Anne, who died in 1656, four years before the restoration of the monarchy.

51 Fothergill, Brian, Beckford of Fonthill (Boston, 1979), p. 184Google Scholar.

52 Cokayne's, Complete Peerage, 5:537nGoogle Scholar.

53 Faringdon, Joseph, The Faringdon Diary, ed. Grieg, James, 3d ed. (New York, 1923), 5:160Google Scholar.

54 Potter, R. G., “Birth Intervals: Structure and Change,” Population Studies 17 (1963): 155CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 McLaren, Dorothy, “Marital Fertility and Lactation, 1570–1720,” in Women in English Society, 1500–1800, ed. Prior, Mary (London, 1985), p. 45Google Scholar.

56 Quoted by Trumbach, Randolph, The Rise of the Egalitarian Family (New York, 1978), p. 220Google Scholar.

57 Letter of Richard Croft to Mrs. Denman [31 May] 1790, Croft Papers, Lot I. Manuscripts in the possession of Mr. Richard Page Croft of Ware, Herts. Quoted by Lewis, Judith Schneid, “Maternal Health in the English Aristocracy, 1790–1840: Myths and Realities,” Journal of Social History 17 (1983): 107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

58 Hollingsworth, , “Demography of the Peerage,” p. 71Google Scholar.

59 Johansson, Sheila Ryan, “Sex and Death in Victorian England: An Examination of Age and Sex-Specific Death Rates, 1840–1910,” in A Widening Sphere, ed. Vicinus, Martha (Bloomington, Ind., 1977), pp. 164, 169–70Google Scholar.