s/o of the Pa Ingalls thread. Just saw something weird on a genealogy site about Rose Lane's ex husband.

[FaithManor]

Geni

 

It says that Claire Gillette Lane and Rose Wilder Lane had TWO baby boys. It lists baby one as born and died on Nov. 23 1909.

 

Presumably, Rose gave birth to the baby either stillborn or only lived for a few hours, and as a result of complications reportedly had surgery in Kansas City (must have been home visiting Laura and Almanzo) some time in 1910.

 

 But there is listed another baby boy born to them on August 12, 1910 and died August 24, 1910. Lived twelve days. Again unnamed.

 

I would really love to know who put that entry into the genealogy and what the "evidence" for a second child is. If there was indeed a death certificate, man was that an excellently kept literary secret! Rose never mentioned baby number two in any of her correspondence and whatever the surgery was, it could not have been a hysterectomy unless it occurred after the second birth and the baby she briefly mentions in her letters was the August 1910 baby. Something isn't right.

 

One would think that Lea McBride would have let this news out by now.

 

I doubt the veracity of the entry, but then on the other hand, my curiosity is up because when my mom was doing research on her side of the family a couple of unknown babies turned up that were very well kept family secrets.

[Annie G]

It's confusing, isn't it? I always thought she had one stillborn child and that's all, but in the 80's when I became more interested in libertarian thought I read more about Rose and even now Libertarian.org mentions that Rose gave birth to a son who died shortly thereafter.  They don't list a date, but I wouldn't exactly think stillborn and a birth where the child dies 'shortly later' are the same thing.  But it might very well be. Since she often omitted any mention of her marriage after they were divorced, it might also be that she didn't mention a second baby. But yeah, pretty weird for it to show up on Gillette's page and not in any of Rose's bios. 

[freesia]

I remember reading about the second child about ten years ago. I don't remrmber where online, but it was in an article or something discussing the fact that three generations had trouble birthing boys that survived and wondering if there was s genetic component.

[FaithManor]

Annie, it is especially weird because Baby Lane born in 1909 at approximately six months gestation was buried in Mt. Olivet cemetery in Salt Lake City, Utah. His parents were traveling and staying at the Colonial Hotel at the time.

 

It would seem that if a child that either was stillborn or died within hours was given a proper burial (though no headstone, just a mention in the cemetery records), that a baby that lived twelve days would also have a grave that would have been found by now.

 

Odd. Very odd.

 

Also of note that in the comments section on the discovery of the grave of 1909 Baby Lane, a woman who claimed to be a descendent of Peter Ingalls - Laura's cousin if memory serves - said that even now, descendants of Pa's side have a LOT of miscarriages of male babies, stillborn male babies, and few surviving males out of numerous male babes. This would seem to indicate some sort of y linked genetic issue. While it seems clear that Freddie Ingalls died of serious illness, maybe he was never healthy. On Caroline's side not only did her mother have sons that made it to adulthood, many of them had sons successfully as well which makes me think if there is a problem, it is most definitely not on the Quiner side.

 

Another site indicated that another one of Pa's brothers had numerous descendants who have had many male baby/child losses.

 

Makes me wonder.

 

 

[Chris in VA]

Miscarriage is in the news--I wonder if there is a genetic link; IOW, if lack of stem cells is passed down. Maybe it was the case in Pa's family.

 

Just a thought.

[Pippen]

 

It would seem that if a child that either was stillborn or died within hours was given a proper burial (though no headstone, just a mention in the cemetery records), that a baby that lived twelve days would also have a grave that would have been found by now.

 

 

I've been doing family research for 16 years and I have a number of people in my tree that death/cemetery records haven't surfaced for, and a great many that don't have headstones. I even have one couple that family notes say died in a town in the 1930's and were buried in the family plot, and in their case it's highly probable. But there simply are no official records, and if there were ever headstones, they didn't survive. The more I looked into the issue, it because clear that there were gaps in the records from that time period and eventually I read verification of that fact in the state archives.

[HomeAgain]

Sad to say, but my first thought was that the baby was...not well formed.  It would account for the secrecy and lack of mention.