Should we enter foundlings who died young? Permanently unconnected.

Question

I'm doing a One-Place study and not sure about entering the files on foundling births . About half will have died young, therefore never connected to anyone. It seems cruel to leave them out, but entering them creates a permanent group of unconnecteds.  Guidance?

Comments

There is a big difference between a foundling and a stillborn child, or a child that died young of known parents.

I have a complete set of baptism and burial records for a church in England from the mid 1500s to the mid 1800s.

There are many records for completely unknown children.

As an example 'buried this date an unknown baby/child found dead by the road'.

vs, Stillborn child of Stephen and Hannah buried this date.

---

My question was specifically about foundlings who died young. I have always been entering stillbirths, as they are connected to their parents and are certainly part of the parents' story even if they have no story of their own. The consensus seems to be that we should not worry about connectedness (is that a word?), and create a profile for  foundlings who died young. If connectedness is not a primary goal, this is a good answer.

---

Do your foundlings have names? If so who named them? Where is your OPS?

I am finding this topic very interesting, while looking for a definition for foundling, I found this one:

‘Foundling’ is an historic term applied to children, usually babies, who have been abandoned by parents then discovered and cared for by others.

on this website

https://foundlingmuseum.org.uk/our-story/what-is-a-foundling/

I too enter stillbirths because they are part of the parent's story and sometimes part of any siblings story. I still remember my mother having a late miscarriage/still birth when I was about 6 or 7.

---

To your question as to who named them, there was a midwife who was designated as the 'receiver of foundlings', and her house was equipped with a baby wheel. The mother put the child in the enclosure and then turned it so that the child was in the house, out of the weather. The midwife gave the child its name. Until about 1845, the children were given only first names, and then the midwives started giving both first and last names.  It really was quite a process!

---

M Ross

Foundlings, in Italy specifically, have an unique research knowledge base required.

For instance below, as you look through the record indexes etc....the Proietti's & Esposito's begin to really jump out at you. 

Historical Cases
Into the nineteenth century, foundlings were often given surnames which actually indicated their illegitimacy. Proietti meant "cast out," Trovato literally meant "foundling," and D'Ignoti "of unknown" parents. Esposito derived directly from the Latin ex positum (literally "of this place") which appeared in some acts of baptism of foundlings. Legislation passed in 1928 outlawed the practice of assigning such children surnames indicative of their illegitimacy or abandonment, but surnames of some sort still had to be given to these children. These were sometimes the surnames of royal and noble families, but more often they were toponymic (geographical) in nature or alluded to the day, month or season of the child's birth (i.e. Sabato, Maggio, Primavera, and so forth).

---

Interesting. It looks like different towns or geographic regions may have handled things differently. I should have clarified my comment to limit it to Santa Margherita Belice, as I have no idea what other towns may have done. It appears that in SMB the midwife just picked a last name at whim. Some were common names in the town, others were names she may have heard but which had no local presence.

I still have no clue who raised these children. A church orphanage, I guess.

Answer 1

Maybe a space page or pages where you list all of them? That way their lives are still commemorated.

Answer 2

My opinion: One person, one profile. That they are (probably) permanently unconnected is okay.

Comments

They could at least be linked by category, or space page - or both.

---

I agree that the profiles should be created as usual. The spage page would also be a great idea.

---

Agree with Matthew. They existed and they are actually 'connected' because of the fantastic work you've done building the categories where they will be listed among all the others from Santa Margherita di Belice. 

Answer 3

Yes. We might as well include them asnwe include any other person.

I have included stillborn babies because they might explain gaps and people with gravestones. I have even included pre-term babies killed in vehicle collisions (also possible in other accidents, ship sinkings, air crashes, fires, and the like. If there is an unambiguous record there is a person whose validity as genuine as yours or mine.

Answer 4

It looks like the vote is to enter then. I like Sharon's idea of a dedicated page, as a compromise solution, but in truth it would be a lot of work and I doubt that anyone would care to check out all these children who were never ancestors or relatives.  Thanks, all, for your help with this.

Answer 5

A few years ago there was a topic in the 52Ancestors (which are for me "52 Unconnected Branches") which I interpreted for me with looking for an unconnected dead child. And on FamilySearch I found the record that told me the parents. That way I could connect the child to the parents.

Also - the mission of WikiTree is to have a complete family tree. It can't be complete if the children that died young are not recorded here.