History stuffs
Apr. 26th, 2012 10:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chocolatepotWhile I was looking through files about wedding dresses yesterday I came across a good number of names and dates - wedding dresses generally have good provenances, sometimes with family trees. And the ones with dates showed people of the same age at marriage, which I find interesting as there's the whole trope of young women marrying older men. Exaggerated into bad/desperate parents trying to get an 18yo girl to marry a 40yo man, but represented normally with a six or seven year difference. And I find the same similar ages (or older women) on my Ancestry tree. (Examples are birth years of couples, shown m/f.)
1928/1930. 1891/1884. 1902/1902. 1904/1903. 1875/1875. 1876/1872. 1873/1877. 1872/1873. 1848/1849. 1850/1844. 1849/1851. 1808/1808. 1797/1794. 1790/1794. 1771/1771. 1771/1773. 1786/1788. 1754/1758. 1746/1745. 1720/1722. 1715/1717. 1709/1710. 1709/1708. 1703/1703. 1696/1700. 1682/1685. 1681/1680. 1673/1673. 1668/1667. 1645/1648. 1632/1636. 1600/1580. 1600/1564.
I mean, my point's not that everything is a lie!!! because there are plenty of examples of five-to-ten year age differences, and even a handful of "whoa, seriously, he was HOW MUCH older than her?" (1845/1863, 1824/1845, 1617/1636.) It probably does average out to the stereotypical 6-7 year age difference. What I'm saying is, it's worth a thought. ETA: I'm also noting how old many of the women were when they died - I'm not noticing many deaths in childbirth. I mean, my grandmother is 82 this year. Her mother lived to be 93. Going back maternally, the ages run: unknown, 84, 80, 64. (The next one has no given death date and I can't find her parents.) The ages do tend to go down as you go further back in time, but there are still plenty living into their 70s and 80s in the 18th and 17th centuries. (Supposedly even a 119yo - Elizabeth Tyrer, 1571-1690 - but who knows if the death record is right.) I'm not sure what to make of it, but I think "if you survived your first child you were likely to survive the others as well" is probably a good rule of thumb.
Completely unrelated, but I've had a strange fascination with early 20th century burlesque for the past few weeks, probably since I caught the 1960s Gypsy at Melissa's. I think I find it interesting because it was so much more like vaudeville than modern strip clubs. Right now I'm watching Lady of Burlesque and it seems like quite a good look at what they were like and what sort of acts were common/popular (though I do wonder how much was cleaned up for the film). Some of the comics' things seem to have influenced cartoons as well.
1928/1930. 1891/1884. 1902/1902. 1904/1903. 1875/1875. 1876/1872. 1873/1877. 1872/1873. 1848/1849. 1850/1844. 1849/1851. 1808/1808. 1797/1794. 1790/1794. 1771/1771. 1771/1773. 1786/1788. 1754/1758. 1746/1745. 1720/1722. 1715/1717. 1709/1710. 1709/1708. 1703/1703. 1696/1700. 1682/1685. 1681/1680. 1673/1673. 1668/1667. 1645/1648. 1632/1636. 1600/1580. 1600/1564.
I mean, my point's not that everything is a lie!!! because there are plenty of examples of five-to-ten year age differences, and even a handful of "whoa, seriously, he was HOW MUCH older than her?" (1845/1863, 1824/1845, 1617/1636.) It probably does average out to the stereotypical 6-7 year age difference. What I'm saying is, it's worth a thought. ETA: I'm also noting how old many of the women were when they died - I'm not noticing many deaths in childbirth. I mean, my grandmother is 82 this year. Her mother lived to be 93. Going back maternally, the ages run: unknown, 84, 80, 64. (The next one has no given death date and I can't find her parents.) The ages do tend to go down as you go further back in time, but there are still plenty living into their 70s and 80s in the 18th and 17th centuries. (Supposedly even a 119yo - Elizabeth Tyrer, 1571-1690 - but who knows if the death record is right.) I'm not sure what to make of it, but I think "if you survived your first child you were likely to survive the others as well" is probably a good rule of thumb.
Completely unrelated, but I've had a strange fascination with early 20th century burlesque for the past few weeks, probably since I caught the 1960s Gypsy at Melissa's. I think I find it interesting because it was so much more like vaudeville than modern strip clubs. Right now I'm watching Lady of Burlesque and it seems like quite a good look at what they were like and what sort of acts were common/popular (though I do wonder how much was cleaned up for the film). Some of the comics' things seem to have influenced cartoons as well.
