BIRTH . . . DEATH . . . INFINITY

Does anybody remember watching “Ben Casey” back in the early days of television? Remember how it started with someone drawing the symbols while intoning, “Man; Woman; Birth; Death; Infinity”?

I thought of Ben Casey today as I was downloading digital images from the Old Parish Registers of Scotland – births, marriages, deaths. Here’s a sampling of some of our relatives for a few years in the late 18th century:

• 1774 - Birth of John, son of John Little and his spouse, Mary Armstrong
• 1775 - Death of John, son of John Little and his spouse, Mary Armstrong
• 1776 - Birth of John, son of John Little and his spouse, Mary Armstrong (babies were often given the name of a child who had died)
• 1779 - Birth of Margaret Petrie, daughter of John Little and his spouse, Mary Armstrong
• 1780 - Death of Margaret Petrie, daughter of John Little and his spouse, Mary Armstrong

(Baptism and Burial records for John, son of John Little)

When the government took over civil registration in 1855, one of the columns in the register was titled “When and where married; issue, living and deceased”.  On just one page from 1855, here are extracts from the five entries in that column:

• 2 boys and 2 girls living, 1 boy deceased (married 9 years)
• 2 girls living (married 5 years)
• 1 boy living, 1 boy and 1 girl deceased (married 7 years)
• 1 boy living, 2 girls deceased (married 4 years)
• 1 boy living, 2 boys deceased (married 7 years)

Life expectancy in Britain in the late 18th century was about 40 years. And yet, many of our ancestors and relatives who lived at that time died in their 60's or 70's. It was that high rate of infant deaths that brought the life expectancy down. I suppose the women either learned to cope – or else they didn’t. I’m grateful for modern medicine.

 (By the way, if you never watched “Ben Casey”, here’s a link to a video clip of the first 18 seconds of the show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xjq1P5p3fso )

WE'RE ALL HUMAN

I think I’ve come to terms with Great-grandpa Elliott. Here’s my reasoning:
• George Elliott was a product of his times and his culture: born in the county of Fermanagh, Ireland, of Scottish descent, he was raised, I’m sure, with passionate political feelings. That passion, however, was most probably tempered by the struggle to survive in pioneer Canada – everyone, Scots-Irish Protestant, Irish Catholic, French, and every other group had to work together just to keep their heads above water.
• He actually married a Catholic! WOW!! Of course, she was the one who gave up home and family for him; but . . . to brave the stigma of marrying a Catholic took a determined man – and possibly one who was very much in love.
• Yes, he was pretty strict. Jane had to give up her religion, the children must be raised Protestant, no Catholic priest was ever allowed in the home, but . . . his wife was allowed to attend Mass once a year at Easter! (I’m thinking that little great-grandmother of ours was an amazing lady with a fair amount of spunk!)
• I spent a lot of time reading about the Ulster-Scots and watching videos of their history  up to the present time. It was after watching several documentaries of the “Troubles” in Ireland – 1970's mostly – that I quit trying to decide who was right and who was wrong. Every group of people has at some time been oppressed; and given the opportunity, that same group of people will turn around and become the oppressors faster than you can blink. I got disgusted with the whole bunch of them!
• Look at the children who came from the union of that stern Scots-Irish man and the
spunky French Catholic woman. Every one of them has a twinkle in their eyes, a look of knowing how to enjoy themselves. I think they would be fun relatives to get acquainted with.