In a previous post, I produced a set of maps showing the migration of the O’Haras over 200+ years, what was not clear in the disparity between the different lineages is the actual number of people.
The table below shows the number of descendants for each generation and those reaching adulthood (in brackets) from Lawrence’s four surviving children that I have been able to trace. As of June 2026.
Births and survivors by generation
| Generation | John | Elizabeth | Amelia | George | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 (4) |
| 2 | 7 (2) | 8 (5) | 5 (4) | 20 (14) | 40 (25) |
| 3 | 13 (6) | 38 (30) | 26 (21) | 62 (48) | 139 (105) |
| 4 | 11 (10) | 68 (53) | 55 (41) | 102 (93) | 236 (197) |
| 5 | 25 (19) | 97 (87) | 64 (62) | 146 (146) | 332 (314) |
| 6 | 44 (44) | 134 (131) | 61 (59) | 107 (104) | 349 (341) |
| 7 | 44 (44) | 53 (53) | 33 (33) | 27 (27) | 157 (157) |
| 8 | 9 (9) | 8 (8) | 5 (5) | 2 (2) | 24 (24) |
| Total | 154 (135) | 407 (368) | 253 (229) | 467 (435) | 1283 (1169) |
The shocking thing looking at this today is the normality of childhood death. In the second generation it was 37%, in the third 24%.
The 13 year gap between the birth of John and George, hides the time dimension in this, the table below shows that even up until before the Second World War mortality was very high.
Births and survivors by time
| Birth Range | Died in Childhood | UK Mortality |
|---|---|---|
| 1800-1819 | 32% | |
| 1820-1839 | 6 (67%) | 30% |
| 1840-1859 | 4 (19%) | 27% |
| 1860-1879 | 21 (28%) | 25% |
| 1880-1899 | 23 (25%) | 23% |
| 1900-1919 | 32 (18%) | 17% |
| 1920-1939 | 14 (7%) | 10% |
| 1940-1959 | 9 (3%) | 5% |
| 1960-1979 | 7 (3%) | 2% |
These are as higher or higher than would have been the case if they had been living in England and poor, although the O’Hara’s were relatively economically privileged in comparison to the rest of the population. There are no good estimates of child mortality in India, but it is likely to have been around 40-50%.
The charts below show the differences between the different descendant lines.
Across the generations, John’s line had a 50% chance of reaching 40 years of age and for the others around 60. One would expect that, with child-birth being a major contributor to female mortality, that this would be reflected in the figures, but apart from John’s line where the figure formed from age 40 to 35, the other lines seem to be doing better than the average, especially on Amelia’s lineage.
The men, though seem to be doing worse, dying younger and especially pronounced on Amelia’s line
In future posts, I hope to dig into the potential reasons, looking first at location for an explanation of the differences.
Leave a Reply