s/o Ingalls - miscarrying only boys?

[Katy]

That's a thing?  Can someone give me medical details, I can't find that it's been studied at all.

[Chris in VA]

1.  It may have been a coincidence.

 

2.  There are certain genetic disorders that only boys can get (pass thru to the males); if "the body knows," as some say, then maybe there was a problem that happened to end in miscarriage.

[wonderchica]

I don't know about miscarriage rates, but newborn boys have poorer health outcomes/higher mortality than females. They're more likely to have various birth defects, and miscarriages can often be the result severe defects.

[solascriptura]

I bet it was a genetic disorder carried through the males. I just can't believe that every baby boy died for all of those women in their families without a genetic component.

[Matryoshka]

I bet it was a genetic disorder carried through the males. I just can't believe that every baby boy died for all of those women in their families without a genetic component.

 

Um, if it was genetic, it would have to be passed down through the women..  Otherwise Pa and all his brothers would also have miscarried / been stillborn.

 

Sex-linked characteristics are carried on the X chromosome.  The man passes on the Y, which has nothing.  So a recessive trait on the mother's X chromosome is expressed in all the boys.  The mother is the carrier.

 

Besides, think about it.  Ma also came from a family of all girls (were there any brothers that were stillborn/died young?).  Laura and Rose had problems with their male offspring, but they, the women, were passing it on.  The boys didn't live to pass it on.

 

I think someone else mentioned that Pa's brothers' families also had problems with male offspring.  But remember, they all married Ma's sisters, who would also be carriers!

 

[DesertBlossom]

I know someone who had all sisters and only aunts on their mother's side. I don't know how many generations back that pattern went but they assumed they would also never have a boy. They did eventually after several girls though.

[Shellydon]

It's a thing.   Many families carry genes that cause syndromes in boys and those babies are often miscarried. If you get a chance to take a college genetics course, that kind of stuff is covered.  It it interesting.

[Katy]

Oh interesting.  I wasn't googling the correct things:  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707631589

[itsheresomewhere]

I know someone who had all sisters and only aunts on their mother's side. I don't know how many generations back that pattern went but they assumed they would also never have a boy. They did eventually after several girls though.

 

 

A good friend of mine has traced her DH's family very far back.  They only have boys no girls since the late 1800's.  Her research was very interesting.

[gardenmom5]

boys are more often miscarried.  can't site a study - but I've read it several other places.

 

I think it has to do with how fragile that y-chromosome really is.  it's the smallest of all the chromosomes too.

[JFSinIL]

Isn't hemophilia one of those sad disorders affecting only males, carried by the moms?

[Joker]

This is interesting. I only have girls but have miscarried. My brother only has girls and they have miscarried. My dad is an only and my mom only has one sibling due to miscarriages and still births (of boys).

[maize]

Here's an article about the lower rate of male births in times of stress: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/why-women-s-bodies-abort-males-during-tough-times

[December]

Isn't hemophilia one of those sad disorders affecting only males, carried by the moms?

 

No, females can have it too, it is just much more rare because a female would need to carry a copy on each X chromosome.  Males just need one copy.

[Tammi K]

I've miscarried 3 boys - all about 18-20 weeks.  I have an auto-immune clotting disorder and only had high levels with male pregnancies.  In the two male pregnancies I carried to term I had heparin shots for the duration.

 

The doctors believe there was a connection between loss and gender but they said there just hasn't been enough research to date.

Isn't there speculation that Henry VIII had some medical condition that made it very difficult for any of his wives to bear a healthy male child?

[Tanaqui]

A good friend of mine has traced her DH's family very far back.  They only have boys no girls since the late 1800's.  Her research was very interesting.

 

Is her husband transgender?

 

[Anne in CA]

I knew someone who was the only girl in her father's family for 8 generations. She was quite doted upon, you can imagine.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I might embarrass myself with this possibly stupid question, but how did she know all the miscarries were boys?  Or were these late term miscarries?

 

 

[Janeway]

My daughter was the only girl for generations on my husband's biological side. I have had several miscarriages and the two times where they did DNA analysis, they were girls. We do not know of any genetic defect that would cause this. Did find out recently that my husband carries several copies of BRCA1, but, from what I find online, that didn't cause it. We have 4 sons.

[SparklyUnicorn]

There are things that get "passed down" that are not genetic.

 

 

[Reefgazer]

The times I miscarried I was offered genetic testing on the fetus. I declined, but many people get the testing and find out the sex of the child.

I might embarrass myself with this possibly stupid question, but how did she know all the miscarries were boys? Or were these late term miscarries?

[Janeway]

The times I miscarried I was offered genetic testing on the fetus. I declined, but many people get the testing and find out the sex of the child.

They would not have had this testing back in her day. I am betting the losses were 2nd trimester or later.

[Tsuga]

Is her husband transgender?

 

I was thinking he was the first in a long time. :)

[Liz CA]

MIL had five boys and miscarried two girls. She gave up trying after that. For 15 years, there were only boys born into our extended family. Finally we have some girls too.  :lol:

[nansk]

I was thinking he was the first in a long time. :)

 

Am I misreading the original post? She said her friend's DH's family only had boys; no girls. Why would that make her friend's DH "transgender" or "the first (boy) in a long time?"

Edited March 15, 2016 by nansk

[Tsuga]

Am I misreading the original post? She said her friend's DH's family only had boys; no girls. Why would that make her friend's DH "transgender" or "the first (boy) in a long time?"

 

Oh funny, I did misread, I think based on SparklyUnicorn's misreading.

 

You're right.

[Carrie12345]

I'd definitely wonder and probably want to investigate (in the modern world) if it were impacting me, but sometimes giant coincidences happen.

 

My mother is the oldest of 5 born girls (and unknown miscarriages,) I'm the oldest of 3 girls, both my sisters have a girl each, my stepsister has 3 girls, and my stepbrother has 2 girls (and a stepson.)  I'm the only one to have birthed boys (as well as girls.)  Obviously my stepsiblings aren't genetically linked to me, but it is pretty wild, imo.

[Bluegoat]

They would not have had this testing back in her day. I am betting the losses were 2nd trimester or later.

 

As far as I know, we don't know that they were boys - it's speculation.

[Bluegoat]

Boy fetuses can be more sensitive to chemicals as well.  I say a documentary on a First Nations community a few years ago where births of boys has really dropped, it seems due to chemical contaminants.

[Chris in VA]

Just want to say :grouphug:  to all of you who had miscarriages.

[kirstenhill]

We have a friend with a child who has a life-altering genetic condition. They told us that this condition is nearly 100% diagnosed in girls, because if boys are conceived with the same condition, the rate of miscarriage or stillbirth is nearly 100%. The condition their daughter has is quite rare, but I wonder if there are other similar genetic conditions with the same issue that one gender or the other is always miscarried if the child inherited those genes.

[Katy]

Apparently there are also conditions where the first pregnancy of boy(s) is unaffected, but subsequent pregnancies of only boys are miscarried - apparently due to the woman's body attacking the y chromosome at around six weeks.  Would explain SO much about multiple generations of my extended family being able to have one boy (or one set of boy twins), but multiple 1st trimester miscarriages thereafter, even among very young and otherwise fertile mothers. One relative had one boy, seven girls and many more miscarriages. This is so fascinating.

[Matryoshka]

 

They would not have had this testing back in her day. I am betting the losses were 2nd trimester or later.

 

As far as I know, we don't know that they were boys - it's speculation.

 

Wait, what are we speculating about???  Back in whose day?  I thought we were talking about the Ingalls family?  Ma had a boy - he was born, he lived, then he died.  Same with Laura.  And Rose had a boy stillborn.  I don't remember reading about any miscarriages in the family, boy, girl or otherwise.

 

Or are we talking about one of the other families upthread?  But I'm reading through trying to figure it out, and they all say there were only boys (or girls) for many generations sometimes, but they don't reference miscarriages, just single-gender families...??? 

Edited March 15, 2016 by Matryoshka

[Reefgazer]

Yes, but I thought Sparkly was just asking how one can tell (I thought she was referring to today).

 

They would not have had this testing back in her day. I am betting the losses were 2nd trimester or later.

[BrittanyM]

I've miscarried 3 boys - all about 18-20 weeks. I have an auto-immune clotting disorder and only had high levels with male pregnancies. In the two male pregnancies I carried to term I had heparin shots for the duration.

 

The doctors believe there was a connection between loss and gender but they said there just hasn't been enough research to date.

This is an intriguing thought. I had a son who was stillborn due to a clotting disorder but my levels weren't very high either. With my subsequent daughter's pregnancy my levels were never elevated and everything was fine. This makes me wonder what might happen in the future.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dicentra]

Isn't there speculation that Henry VIII had some medical condition that made it very difficult for any of his wives to bear a healthy male child?

 

There is speculation that he was Kell positive and may have had McLeod syndrome:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kell_antigen_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLeod_syndrome

 

Here's an article that's written less technically:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110303153114.htm

 

Bascially, a Kell positive man can have a healthy first Kell positive baby with a Kell negative woman but the antibodies the woman produces during that first pregnancy will cross the placental barrier and attack a Kell positive fetus in all subsequent pregnancies.  I would imagine it's similar to the problems when a father is Rh positive and a mother is Rh negative.  If the first child is Rh positive, the mother's body will build up antibodies to the positive Rh factor.  If she then has a second pregnancy where the fetus is Rh positive, those antibodies could possibly cross the placental barrier and cause severe anemia in the fetus.  Nowadays, the mother would be tested during the second pregnancy and be given Rh immune globulin to stop her body producing those antibodies during pregnancy.  My mother is Rh negative but my dad is Rh positive - both my sister and I are Rh positive.  My mom had to be given Rh immune globulin during her pregnancy with my sister.

 

ETA: I suppose that doesn't address the male/female issue question.  None of Henry's wives had any children of either sex that lived other than the first child, I believe.  ETA again:  I was mistaken. :)  Mary was his 5th child with Katherine of Aragon.  They suspect that Mary may have been Kell negative whereas the first 4 were Kell positive.  I guess there can be circumstances where even the first Kell positive child is miscarried.  Or, alternately, the first child was Kell positive but was miscarried for a completely unrelated reason.  Katherine's body would have still built up Kell positive antibodies, I would think, which would then have affected any later Kell positive children.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Dicentra

[Dicentra]

Oops.  Double post. :)

Edited March 15, 2016 by Dicentra

[itsheresomewhere]

Is her husband transgender?

 

No.  

[itsheresomewhere]

Am I misreading the original post? She said her friend's DH's family only had boys; no girls. Why would that make her friend's DH "transgender" or "the first (boy) in a long time?"

 

I thought I typed it correctly in my allergy haze.  

 

Oh funny, I did misread, I think based on SparklyUnicorn's misreading.

 

You're right.

 

LOL. I was wondering how you got that from that.  

[FaithManor]

I think it all just an unfortunate collision of non genetic factors.

 

1. Ma did birth a boy that was reportedly healthy. He died at nine months of age of terrible diarrhea which at that time and without the medical care available today, killed many an infant and was not genetically linked. She did not leave behind a record of miscarriages or stillbirths so the only thing that can be gleaned from this is that she was able to have a son, and the reason there may not have been more was Pa simply sported more X sperm than Y.

 

2. Ma's mother had more than one healthy boy who lived to adulthood.

 

3. Ma's sister Eliza had three sons who lived to adulthood as well as her half sister - Lottie - who had three sons and if memory serves, all lived to adulthood.

 

4. Pa had brothers so his mother had no issue having sons. His brothers also had sons. Doubtful that the Ingalls boys carried an genetic marker on the Y chromosome that killed off boy babies.

 

5. Ma had experienced several times of malnutrition during her marriage to Charles, and that alone would account for periods of infertility. She was 38 when she had Grace, so in that day and time and considering the diet and hard life they lead, very likely at the end of her fertility window thus no more babies.

 

6. Laura conceived within the first two years, Rose, and two + years later, the boy. He was born by all accounts full term and healthy, but died having been taken with pain and spasms very quickly. This isn't enough of anything to diagnose anything.

 

7. The reason there were likely no more pregnancies despite being so young, likely had nothing to do with Laura. The same year the baby died, Almanzo and Laura both contracted diphtheria. Manzo was left with partial paralysis including the lower extremities so likely, hate to say it, suffered impotence.

 

8. Laura, Ma, Mary, Grace, and Carrie all developed type 2 diabetes. Without the kinds of treatments we have today, this alone would cause fertility and pregnancy problems. Grace married late enough that she may have been suffering peri-menopause anyway, but definitely could have been a contributing factor to Ma, Carrie, and Laura not having more, though in Laura's case I think it had a lot more to do with Almanzo's residual health problems from the diphtheria. Mary of course never married so no data to collect on her.

 

The rumor about there being a genetic issue came from Pa's side of the family, claims in the last two decades from descendants of one of his brothers that boy babies are being miscarried or stillborn. However, genetic testing is available and one would think that if this were a likely problem, care providers would have already suggested genetics be considered, yet there have been no announcements about this rather famous family. No claims from descendants of Ma's brothers or sisters have been made.

 

I think that though there could be an unknown genetic issue, it is more likely an unfortunate set of health problems and circumstances that came together to cause the genetic line of Charles and Caroline to have died out with Rose.

 

In a literature class I took in college, the class had to choose a children's author to write an extensive paper on, and I chose Laura Ingalls. My friend chose Lewis Carroll, and LOL, that was eye opening for her as well!

[Butter]

Isn't there speculation that Henry VIII had some medical condition that made it very difficult for any of his wives to bear a healthy male child?

 

There are many theories.  I just read a very, very long book on the wives of Henry VIII.

 

First wife had a girl (Mary).  She had stillbirths/baby losses, but not gender specific.  She had a stillborn boy and a stillborn girl and two infant boys and one infant girl died.  One of those boys died of an intestinal problem at 52 days.  The other boy was premature and died soon after birth.  The girl was described as "weak" and lived a week or less.

 

Second wife had a girl (Elizabeth) and then had several late-term stillbirths of unknown gender.  It is quite probable that Anne Boleyn was Rh- which is why baby #1 was fine while the rest did not survive.

 

Third wife had a son (Edward) and died shortly after childbirth, probably from an infected tear.  Edward was actually not unhealthy.  Henry kept him in as sterile an environment as possible since he was opposed to females ruling and so it was pretty important for the boy to survive.  He had TB, which he did not contract until a year before he died.  He died young (15), but it is not true that he was sickly from birth.

 

Fourth wife's marriage was almost definitely not consummated.

 

Fifth and sixth wives never conceived (there were rumors that by then Henry VIII was impotent, largely due to his incredibly large size).

 

The sixth wife gave birth to a daughter by her fourth husband (Henry was her third) and died shortly after childbirth.  Katherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves (the other two wives who lived after marriage to Henry) did not have children after their marriages to Henry VIII.

 

On the other hand, he produced a perfectly healthy male illegitimate son in 1519 (Henry Fitzroy).  It is also possible that he produced an additional 6 illegitimate children as well (two of which were female, 4 male).  So it is very likely there was nothing wrong with Henry VIII's genetics as far as male children go.  He just got wildly unlucky as far children produced by his wives and his view of who should succeed him (males only).

[FaithManor]

There is speculation that he was Kell positive and may have had McLeod syndrome:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kell_antigen_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLeod_syndrome

 

Here's an article that's written less technically:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110303153114.htm

 

Bascially, a Kell positive man can have a healthy first Kell positive baby with a Kell negative woman but the antibodies the woman produces during that first pregnancy will cross the placental barrier and attack a Kell positive fetus in all subsequent pregnancies.  I would imagine it's similar to the problems when a father is Rh positive and a mother is Rh negative.  If the first child is Rh positive, the mother's body will build up antibodies to the positive Rh factor.  If she then has a second pregnancy where the fetus is Rh positive, those antibodies could possibly cross the placental barrier and cause severe anemia in the fetus.  Nowadays, the mother would be tested during the second pregnancy and be given Rh immune globulin to stop her body producing those antibodies during pregnancy.  My mother is Rh negative but my dad is Rh positive - both my sister and I are Rh positive.  My mom had to be given Rh immune globulin during her pregnancy with my sister.

 

ETA: I suppose that doesn't address the male/female issue question.  None of Henry's wives had any children of either sex that lived other than the first child, I believe.  ETA again:  I was mistaken. :)  Mary was his 5th child with Katherine of Aragon.  They suspect that Mary may have been Kell negative whereas the first 4 were Kell positive.  I guess there can be circumstances where even the first Kell positive child is miscarried.  Or, alternately, the first child was Kell positive but was miscarried for a completely unrelated reason.  Katherine's body would have still built up Kell positive antibodies, I would think, which would then have affected any later Kell positive children.

I think that also with the royal bloodlines of Western Europe, it is important to consider as well the constant in-breeding which caused every royal house to be super related to every other royal house. Spain in particular had been marrying uncles to nieces for hundreds of years so one has to wonder about Katherine of Aragon's health, well being, and genetic status to begin with, and it isn't like England didn't practice the same thing. I doubt either of these two adults were particularly genetically robust.

[plansrme]

This really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I have a friend who was a NICU nurse 20+ years ago, and she says "everyone knows" that white male preemies do the worst. NICU nurses of her generation at least refer to them as "wimpy white boys." She had her own preemie who was a wimpy white boy and did not survive, which is how this came up--I had no idea she had had a son before the one I knew as her oldest (he is probably 30 now).

 

Carry on. . ..

[Chelli]

I read once that more boys are conceived but more girls make it to birth thus leading to a slightly larger female population on the planet. Apparently boys are much more fragile in utero compared to girls.

 

I have no remembrance of where I read it but I remember thinking that it was interesting.

[shawthorne44]

There are many theories.  I just read a very, very long book on the wives of Henry VIII.

 

First wife had a girl (Mary).  She had stillbirths/baby losses, but not gender specific.  She had a stillborn boy and a stillborn girl and two infant boys and one infant girl died.  One of those boys died of an intestinal problem at 52 days.  The other boy was premature and died soon after birth.  The girl was described as "weak" and lived a week or less.

 

Second wife had a girl (Elizabeth) and then had several late-term stillbirths of unknown gender.  It is quite probable that Anne Boleyn was Rh- which is why baby #1 was fine while the rest did not survive.

 

Third wife had a son (Edward) and died shortly after childbirth, probably from an infected tear.  Edward was actually not unhealthy.  Henry kept him in as sterile an environment as possible since he was opposed to females ruling and so it was pretty important for the boy to survive.  He had TB, which he did not contract until a year before he died.  He died young (15), but it is not true that he was sickly from birth.

 

Fourth wife's marriage was almost definitely not consummated.

 

Fifth and sixth wives never conceived (there were rumors that by then Henry VIII was impotent, largely due to his incredibly large size).

 

The sixth wife gave birth to a daughter by her fourth husband (Henry was her third) and died shortly after childbirth.  Katherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves (the other two wives who lived after marriage to Henry) did not have children after their marriages to Henry VIII.

 

On the other hand, he produced a perfectly healthy male illegitimate son in 1519 (Henry Fitzroy).  It is also possible that he produced an additional 6 illegitimate children as well (two of which were female, 4 male).  So it is very likely there was nothing wrong with Henry VIII's genetics as far as male children go.  He just got wildly unlucky as far children produced by his wives and his view of who should succeed him (males only).

 

 

I have a personal theory that the illegitimate kids weren't really his.   The mistresses wouldn't have had the same scrutiny that the queens had.  The real father would have no reason to step forward and say, "That kid might be mine" because a kid's illegitimate kid was provided for.  

 

eta:  Plus if you are mistress, it is already established that you have no problem with sex outside of marriage.   

Edited March 15, 2016 by shawthorne44

[prairiewindmomma]

This really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I have a friend who was a NICU nurse 20+ years ago, and she says "everyone knows" that white male preemies do the worst. NICU nurses of her generation at least refer to them as "wimpy white boys." She had her own preemie who was a wimpy white boy and did not survive, which is how this came up--I had no idea she had had a son before the one I knew as her oldest (he is probably 30 now).

 

Carry on. . ..

I heard this when our baby was in NICU a few years ago.  Anecdotally, the NICU nurses told me that black females went home first.  Of all of the babies in the wing my daughter was in, that certainly seemed to be the case.  It didn't matter if they were born with severely low birth weights, they weaned off of oxygen and could hold their body temps weeks earlier than the other babies.  

[Butter]

I have a personal theory that the illegitimate kids weren't really his.   The mistresses wouldn't have had the same scrutiny that the queens had.  The real father would have no reason to step forward and say, "That kid might be mine" because a kid's illegitimate kid was provided for.  

 

eta:  Plus if you are mistress, it is already established that you have no problem with sex outside of marriage.   

 

Fitzroy was most definitely his.  He was the only illegitimate child Henry VIII claimed and provided for.  The other six are iffy and some have other men who claimed parentage.

[LucyStoner]

N/m

Edited March 15, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Katy]

I read once that more boys are conceived but more girls make it to birth thus leading to a slightly larger female population on the planet. Apparently boys are much more fragile in utero compared to girls.

 

I have no remembrance of where I read it but I remember thinking that it was interesting.

 

When I was googling this before I started the thread I found that in times of low stress, there are about 105 boys born for every 100 girls.  But in times of high stress it's been found to dip down to something more like 79-100, but the boys who are born are much more likely to survive if they live to birth- they have longer lifespans and tend to be healthier.  Which implies that women's bodies are more likely to miscarry genetically weak boys in hard times (war, famine, hard winters were examples given). Which was interesting, but occurred among all women generally, not specific families due to genetic causes.